diff --git "a/changemyview/test.json" "b/changemyview/test.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/changemyview/test.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,1836 @@
+{"post_id":"ffc2o9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Anti-vaxxers who have a child die to a preventable disease should be charged for murder\/manslaughter at minimum. At this point in technology, where almost everything is available for public viewing on the internet, there is no reason for anyone to be an anti-vaxxer. There is literally tens of thousands of legitimate scientifically proven articles on why vaccines are a good thing and less than 100 of the opposing argument in the same category. Therefore, it is due to pure negligence that someone has this viewpoint and should be treated the same or more harshly than someone, for example, who leaves their kids in their car on a hot day. Pure negligence and stupidity. They should receive almost no empathy and should be jailed on the spot.  It is too ridiculous a point to still be making. If you have a different argument, be my guest.","c_root_id_A":"fjxhm7o","c_root_id_B":"fjxgt3v","created_at_utc_A":1583673557,"created_at_utc_B":1583672738,"score_A":1466,"score_B":212,"human_ref_A":"Manslaughter requires direct participation in the person's death, so does murder.  A more appropriate charge would be criminal negligence. Negligence is the absence of action. You can not convict someone for murder without them actively participating in the death.  Unless the parents deliberately infected the child, they took no active part in the death. It was their lack of action which was a contributing factor.  On the other hand, negligence has been used to punish circumstances where parents refuse medical treatment for their children.  These two Canadian parents were found guilty of criminal negligence causing the death of their 14 month old child. They basically refused to take him to hospital, and tried to use various natural remedies, until it was too late. He eventually died  of what should have been a treatable infection.   They were sentenced to two and a half years in prison.  ​  Basically, you can't convict someone of murder or manslaughter for being negligent by taking no action. Murder and manslaughter require you to play a direct role in someone's death. Criminal negligence causing death would be the appropriate charge.  ​  That being said, I don't think refusing vaccination merits a criminal approach like this.   Edit: For those interested,  here is the transcript of the full court  judgement for the case  mentioned above. Fills in a lot of details. The most pathetic\/infuriating part were the searches the parents conducted online: ***\"can cabbage leaves cure gangerene?\"***  If you search for that, and dont seek medical care,  then you are responsible for what is happening to your child in my mind.","human_ref_B":"Anti-vaxxers are fucking idiots and and recklessly dangerous, BUT they wholeheartedly believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are protecting their child. Against a huge conspiracy.  If you believed that people were coming to kidnap and murder your child, and the police said they didn't believe it and to forget about it, what would you do? You might improve your home security, you might even attack people you didn't know, who were trying to get close (on their way elsewhere walking past your child)  If you had a mental illness and believed this, your actions would likely be the same. But probably should not go to jail for this.  People who genuinely are trying to do things which they believe are good, should have a punishment, mitigated by their intent.   Anti-vaxxers, though dangerous, should be treated as well meaning idiots. Mandatory vaccination, is the right response.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":819.0,"score_ratio":6.9150943396}
+{"post_id":"ffc2o9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Anti-vaxxers who have a child die to a preventable disease should be charged for murder\/manslaughter at minimum. At this point in technology, where almost everything is available for public viewing on the internet, there is no reason for anyone to be an anti-vaxxer. There is literally tens of thousands of legitimate scientifically proven articles on why vaccines are a good thing and less than 100 of the opposing argument in the same category. Therefore, it is due to pure negligence that someone has this viewpoint and should be treated the same or more harshly than someone, for example, who leaves their kids in their car on a hot day. Pure negligence and stupidity. They should receive almost no empathy and should be jailed on the spot.  It is too ridiculous a point to still be making. If you have a different argument, be my guest.","c_root_id_A":"fjxijua","c_root_id_B":"fjxlhg9","created_at_utc_A":1583674461,"created_at_utc_B":1583677143,"score_A":34,"score_B":79,"human_ref_A":"You can\u2019t say the parents are guilty of murder or manslaughter just because you believe they are acting irresponsibly. Murder requires intent; the prosecutor would have to prove that the parent either deliberately withheld vaccination or refused to properly inform themselves with the intent to kill the child. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the vast majority of anti-vax parents are making this decision to help their child, so this would be incorrect on it\u2019s face.  For manslaughter, most statutes require the actions of the person to have a reasonably high risk of the outcome. Currently, the odds of anyone in a developed country actually acquiring many of the diseases we vaccinate for are low. Even more, merely getting the disease is generally not guaranteed to kill whoever received it. In legal terms, \u201cnegligence\u201d and \u201creckless\u201d require a substantial risk, and I don\u2019t see not vaccinating as a substantial risk.  Should they vaccinate their children? Of course. Being vaccinated is far less risky than being unvaccinated despite both risks being small. I wouldn\u2019t mind incentives related to vaccination. However, punishments have the risk of backfiring. If you penalize people for not vaccinating, they are less likely to engage with those that could potentially expose their actions. Think homeschooling or eschewing doctors in favor of home remedies. This, combined with the potential backlash from parents who see their rights being eroded, could actually drive more people to not vaccinate their children. Before instituting any punishments, we should be sure it actually fits our goal of getting more children vaccinated.","human_ref_B":"Part of the reason antivaxxers exist is because of the public access of the internet, and the sheer information that exists. Antivaxxers don't just wake up one day and decide they don't want shots anymore. Often they have other conspires they believe.   The depth and breadth of information means I can almost always find someone who supports my view, and I can tailor my social media feeds to suppress other viewpoints. This puts me in an echo chamber. Inside my echo chamber, the outlier viewpoint (my viewpoint) is the majority opinion.  When it comes to cases of conspiratorial mindsets, the most common belief structure is:   1. The government has lied about A. 2. The government has put out a statement about B. 3. Therefore, the government's statement on B is likely to be a lie. 4. The scientific community agrees with the government's statement on B. 5. The scientific community receives government grants. 6. Therefore, scientists are \"paid off\" by the government to lie about B.  Obviously, statements 3 and 6 are fallacious (genetic fallacy and guilt by association, respectively). But because there is high degree of skepticism, there are question marks surrounding any official government report.  ---  Given that a conspiratorial-minded parent could fall into a trap like antivaxx, the parent could genuinely believe they are acting in the best interest of their children. Is the parent supposed to recognize that they are in an echo chamber that supports fringe beliefs? Can humans in general recognize when they're in echo chambers?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2682.0,"score_ratio":2.3235294118}
+{"post_id":"ffc2o9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Anti-vaxxers who have a child die to a preventable disease should be charged for murder\/manslaughter at minimum. At this point in technology, where almost everything is available for public viewing on the internet, there is no reason for anyone to be an anti-vaxxer. There is literally tens of thousands of legitimate scientifically proven articles on why vaccines are a good thing and less than 100 of the opposing argument in the same category. Therefore, it is due to pure negligence that someone has this viewpoint and should be treated the same or more harshly than someone, for example, who leaves their kids in their car on a hot day. Pure negligence and stupidity. They should receive almost no empathy and should be jailed on the spot.  It is too ridiculous a point to still be making. If you have a different argument, be my guest.","c_root_id_A":"fjxpe6w","c_root_id_B":"fjxn41q","created_at_utc_A":1583680139,"created_at_utc_B":1583678430,"score_A":31,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"What about ppl who feed their kids sugar every day and the kids get diabetes?   What about the doctors who prescribe opiates?  What about parents who get their kids vaccinated and the kids have a vaccine \u201callergic\u201d reaction?","human_ref_B":"Rights and obligations versus freedom of choice.  In Germany they passed a regulation that obligates parents to vaccinate their children. They can do this because the German government offers their citizens the right on basic healthcare. The German citizens are obligated to pay premiuns and taxes to obtain the right on basic healtcare. So in Germany they could try to take a manslaughter case to court. No idea what a judge wil decide.  In the USA you don't have a right on basic healtcare. You have the freedom to choose for a health insurance. Therefore you can not bring parents to court for manslaughter as argued by u\/Canada_Constitution.  p.s. i think you owe u\/Canada_Constitution a delta for expanding your vieuw on the inner workings of the law.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1709.0,"score_ratio":1.8235294118}
+{"post_id":"ffc2o9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Anti-vaxxers who have a child die to a preventable disease should be charged for murder\/manslaughter at minimum. At this point in technology, where almost everything is available for public viewing on the internet, there is no reason for anyone to be an anti-vaxxer. There is literally tens of thousands of legitimate scientifically proven articles on why vaccines are a good thing and less than 100 of the opposing argument in the same category. Therefore, it is due to pure negligence that someone has this viewpoint and should be treated the same or more harshly than someone, for example, who leaves their kids in their car on a hot day. Pure negligence and stupidity. They should receive almost no empathy and should be jailed on the spot.  It is too ridiculous a point to still be making. If you have a different argument, be my guest.","c_root_id_A":"fjxpe6w","c_root_id_B":"fjxo31w","created_at_utc_A":1583680139,"created_at_utc_B":1583679166,"score_A":31,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"What about ppl who feed their kids sugar every day and the kids get diabetes?   What about the doctors who prescribe opiates?  What about parents who get their kids vaccinated and the kids have a vaccine \u201callergic\u201d reaction?","human_ref_B":"What are the statistics of children who belong to those parents that have actually died? Seriously curious.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":973.0,"score_ratio":2.0666666667}
+{"post_id":"ffc2o9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Anti-vaxxers who have a child die to a preventable disease should be charged for murder\/manslaughter at minimum. At this point in technology, where almost everything is available for public viewing on the internet, there is no reason for anyone to be an anti-vaxxer. There is literally tens of thousands of legitimate scientifically proven articles on why vaccines are a good thing and less than 100 of the opposing argument in the same category. Therefore, it is due to pure negligence that someone has this viewpoint and should be treated the same or more harshly than someone, for example, who leaves their kids in their car on a hot day. Pure negligence and stupidity. They should receive almost no empathy and should be jailed on the spot.  It is too ridiculous a point to still be making. If you have a different argument, be my guest.","c_root_id_A":"fjxqbw8","c_root_id_B":"fjxn41q","created_at_utc_A":1583680804,"created_at_utc_B":1583678430,"score_A":22,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"There are plenty of reasons to not blindly believe that all vaccines are good, necessary, and safe....  What do we do with the parents that get their children vaccinated that have them die to said disease or catch said disease? or Die due to adverse reactions to the vaccine? Cuz that happens?   The term anti vaxxer is akin to the term \"climate denier\" as if someone denies climate. What an absurd statement. Yes there are extremely stupid people that think all vaccines are bad and there is a nuanced truth to that in that they can all potentially produce adverse reactions that can be lethal. The bottom line is its not black and white and we should never place unquestioned loyalty in anyone or anything. Even vaccines.","human_ref_B":"Rights and obligations versus freedom of choice.  In Germany they passed a regulation that obligates parents to vaccinate their children. They can do this because the German government offers their citizens the right on basic healthcare. The German citizens are obligated to pay premiuns and taxes to obtain the right on basic healtcare. So in Germany they could try to take a manslaughter case to court. No idea what a judge wil decide.  In the USA you don't have a right on basic healtcare. You have the freedom to choose for a health insurance. Therefore you can not bring parents to court for manslaughter as argued by u\/Canada_Constitution.  p.s. i think you owe u\/Canada_Constitution a delta for expanding your vieuw on the inner workings of the law.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2374.0,"score_ratio":1.2941176471}
+{"post_id":"ffc2o9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Anti-vaxxers who have a child die to a preventable disease should be charged for murder\/manslaughter at minimum. At this point in technology, where almost everything is available for public viewing on the internet, there is no reason for anyone to be an anti-vaxxer. There is literally tens of thousands of legitimate scientifically proven articles on why vaccines are a good thing and less than 100 of the opposing argument in the same category. Therefore, it is due to pure negligence that someone has this viewpoint and should be treated the same or more harshly than someone, for example, who leaves their kids in their car on a hot day. Pure negligence and stupidity. They should receive almost no empathy and should be jailed on the spot.  It is too ridiculous a point to still be making. If you have a different argument, be my guest.","c_root_id_A":"fjxo31w","c_root_id_B":"fjxqbw8","created_at_utc_A":1583679166,"created_at_utc_B":1583680804,"score_A":15,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"What are the statistics of children who belong to those parents that have actually died? Seriously curious.","human_ref_B":"There are plenty of reasons to not blindly believe that all vaccines are good, necessary, and safe....  What do we do with the parents that get their children vaccinated that have them die to said disease or catch said disease? or Die due to adverse reactions to the vaccine? Cuz that happens?   The term anti vaxxer is akin to the term \"climate denier\" as if someone denies climate. What an absurd statement. Yes there are extremely stupid people that think all vaccines are bad and there is a nuanced truth to that in that they can all potentially produce adverse reactions that can be lethal. The bottom line is its not black and white and we should never place unquestioned loyalty in anyone or anything. Even vaccines.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1638.0,"score_ratio":1.4666666667}
+{"post_id":"ffc2o9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Anti-vaxxers who have a child die to a preventable disease should be charged for murder\/manslaughter at minimum. At this point in technology, where almost everything is available for public viewing on the internet, there is no reason for anyone to be an anti-vaxxer. There is literally tens of thousands of legitimate scientifically proven articles on why vaccines are a good thing and less than 100 of the opposing argument in the same category. Therefore, it is due to pure negligence that someone has this viewpoint and should be treated the same or more harshly than someone, for example, who leaves their kids in their car on a hot day. Pure negligence and stupidity. They should receive almost no empathy and should be jailed on the spot.  It is too ridiculous a point to still be making. If you have a different argument, be my guest.","c_root_id_A":"fjxqumz","c_root_id_B":"fjxo31w","created_at_utc_A":1583681175,"created_at_utc_B":1583679166,"score_A":16,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"1) Intent.  Their intent is not to hurt anyone, so murder doesn't work.  Murder requires intending the person to die.   2) Outcome.  There is far from 100% certainty that you're going to get sick if you're not immunized.  In fact, if you don't get a flu shot, the odds are STILL that you won't ever even get sick, much less die.  So at this point you're talking about some people going completely free and some people being locked up based on luck, which leads to...  3) Other factors.  There are a lot of tools in your box when it comes to illness prevention.  Vaccination is just one of them.  Proper hygiene and limiting exposure are arguably every bit as effective.  So if someone gets their kid a shot, but then they spend all their time never washing their hands, hanging out with infected people, etc, how do we not charge THEM with a crime?    I think there's a mentality these days that vaccination is bulletproof and that it's the only thing that matters.  Let's not pretend for a second that everyone in this thread got a flu shot this year.  Did you all get the flu?  We've lost THOUSANDS of people to the flu in the US so far this year.  Should you be charged with a crime if you didn't get a shot?  Or if you went out in public with a cough?","human_ref_B":"What are the statistics of children who belong to those parents that have actually died? Seriously curious.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2009.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyin7do","c_root_id_B":"gyia636","created_at_utc_A":1621301401,"created_at_utc_B":1621294900,"score_A":274,"score_B":187,"human_ref_A":"I really want to agree with you, but planned obsolescence does not actually follow the logic of \"this phone *must break* in 2 years\". It follows the logic of \"we don't care if this phone *only lasts* 2 years\". They don't intentionally design it to fail by a certain date (that's actually illegal), they just don't design it to last *beyond* a certain date and if it does, it's just a happy coincidence. They also ignore critical design flaws from time to time.  Planned obscelescence also revolves around making products difficult or prohibitively expensive to repair. For example, sealing the phone with glue, \"no user servicable parts\", \"warranty void if removed\"(also illegal but never really enforced), serializing chips, requiring custom proprietary tools for repairs, and only making parts\/software available to OEM manufacturers. The legality of all this is currently being debated(look up louis rossman on Youtube).","human_ref_B":"So two things here - firstly, consumer disclosure isn\u2019t really the best way to ensure the knowledge is disseminated. Would you, for instance, be okay with a small line in the user manual of a PC somewhere saying \u201cthe date of PO is 3 years from X\u201d? It would probably go unread or unnoticed by the majority of consumers. Better, as the European governments are doing, to take punitive actions against companies that engage in the practise.  But I think more critically, planned obsolescence can be so much more than just selling a defective product and manifests in very insidious ways that make a timeframe a poor way of communicating lifespan to a consumer. With technology it might be simpler, where you explain that certain features may grow outdated at such and such time, but outdated is not the same as obsolete, so where do we draw the line? Likewise, fashion industries use planned obsolescence by rule - why else have seasonal catalogues except to arbitrarily restrict when a product is considered \u201cfunctional\u201d. That timespan is clearly announced, and I doubt anyone would consider selling clothes that go out of fashion to be the same as a defective article. It is a topic that I think is far more difficult to be categorical on than a timespan disclosure would require.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6501.0,"score_ratio":1.4652406417}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyin7do","c_root_id_B":"gyijc73","created_at_utc_A":1621301401,"created_at_utc_B":1621299471,"score_A":274,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"I really want to agree with you, but planned obsolescence does not actually follow the logic of \"this phone *must break* in 2 years\". It follows the logic of \"we don't care if this phone *only lasts* 2 years\". They don't intentionally design it to fail by a certain date (that's actually illegal), they just don't design it to last *beyond* a certain date and if it does, it's just a happy coincidence. They also ignore critical design flaws from time to time.  Planned obscelescence also revolves around making products difficult or prohibitively expensive to repair. For example, sealing the phone with glue, \"no user servicable parts\", \"warranty void if removed\"(also illegal but never really enforced), serializing chips, requiring custom proprietary tools for repairs, and only making parts\/software available to OEM manufacturers. The legality of all this is currently being debated(look up louis rossman on Youtube).","human_ref_B":"I have a more direct suggestion, which I think would achieve the same goal of consumers being empowered, which is right to repair.  Planned obsolescence and their disclosures or lack thereof wouldn\u2019t be a problem (or as much of a problem) if the ability to affordably repair the product in a timely manner was possible and supported.  Apple throttling older phone\u2019s performances in the name of preserving battery life wouldn\u2019t be an issue if the batteries were easily replaceable.  If Apple went back to the removable battery like their older MacBook Pros, I wouldn\u2019t have to plan out 3 weeks of time where I wouldn\u2019t be able to use my laptop because I had to ship it off to get the battery replaced.  And so on and so forth. Even if companies had to disclose planned obsolescence, that would only help consumers realize when they need to replace their product. One could argue that this might indirectly lead to companies developing products with longer service lives to be competitive, but I don\u2019t really think that would happen because of perceived obsolescence. Instead, the ability to easily repair something that doesn\u2019t cost almost as much as totally replacing it would be much better for the life of the product, the user, and the environment.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1930.0,"score_ratio":3.0786516854}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyin7do","c_root_id_B":"gyie94j","created_at_utc_A":1621301401,"created_at_utc_B":1621296928,"score_A":274,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"I really want to agree with you, but planned obsolescence does not actually follow the logic of \"this phone *must break* in 2 years\". It follows the logic of \"we don't care if this phone *only lasts* 2 years\". They don't intentionally design it to fail by a certain date (that's actually illegal), they just don't design it to last *beyond* a certain date and if it does, it's just a happy coincidence. They also ignore critical design flaws from time to time.  Planned obscelescence also revolves around making products difficult or prohibitively expensive to repair. For example, sealing the phone with glue, \"no user servicable parts\", \"warranty void if removed\"(also illegal but never really enforced), serializing chips, requiring custom proprietary tools for repairs, and only making parts\/software available to OEM manufacturers. The legality of all this is currently being debated(look up louis rossman on Youtube).","human_ref_B":"> Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time.  I think you're trying to draw a clear line where none exists.  Apart from lightbulbs, I've never heard of any company using anything remotely that specific.  But that doesn't mean a company might not choose a particular part that might work solidly for anywhere from 6 months to 2 years and then fail suddenly  in some percent of cases even if that part is more expensive. Its not just cost savings.  Its considering the failure curve and trying to target something that works well for just enough time but then starts to break down. That doesn't mean the amount of time is specific and known though.  Or that they'll all fail.  Or that it'll always be the same part that causes the failure.  What about a non-critical part failing, such as the car radio or the AC or something which doesn't make it unusable.  The only way I can think of to really capture that for the consumer would be to require the company to do a lifespan analysis of each part of the device or machine and provide average lifespans for all of those.  Which is extremely hard to do in cases like a brand new type of thing that maybe hasn't been out for 5 years yet, so they really have no idea how many of them might make it to 10 years.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4473.0,"score_ratio":10.5384615385}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyin7do","c_root_id_B":"gyin5ar","created_at_utc_A":1621301401,"created_at_utc_B":1621301372,"score_A":274,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I really want to agree with you, but planned obsolescence does not actually follow the logic of \"this phone *must break* in 2 years\". It follows the logic of \"we don't care if this phone *only lasts* 2 years\". They don't intentionally design it to fail by a certain date (that's actually illegal), they just don't design it to last *beyond* a certain date and if it does, it's just a happy coincidence. They also ignore critical design flaws from time to time.  Planned obscelescence also revolves around making products difficult or prohibitively expensive to repair. For example, sealing the phone with glue, \"no user servicable parts\", \"warranty void if removed\"(also illegal but never really enforced), serializing chips, requiring custom proprietary tools for repairs, and only making parts\/software available to OEM manufacturers. The legality of all this is currently being debated(look up louis rossman on Youtube).","human_ref_B":"The counter-argument is that engineering things to a certain standard is a significant cost, which of course is going to be passed on to consumers. And everything only needs to be designed to the standards that they expect to use it to. Naturally, market logic is going to dictate that the company that spends all its time and money manufacturing things to a standard that is higher quality, more expensive, and takes longer and is more complicated to build than your average product is probably going to fail to make the same money as the company that didn't do that. Of course, where that falls down is where companies manage to produce a superior product for not much more than a standard price, such that people will spend that extra on the name-brand version. Also, when companies design things too well, and don't charge enough, they often find that they can't make more money from that person, because that person has all of what they needed. As such, it loses them money to over-engineer. Also, people often don't pay for better, even if it's available, because they don't value the services they're using.    It therefore just doesn't make any economic sense to design things with parts that are designed to last twice as long as the actual thing. We're not going to pay for it, it's not going to give us better use of that product, and the reality is that it's not a good idea on an economic basis. Products do not need to be better than they have to be, and if we won't pay for better than it has to be, then it just doesn't make any sense to make that. Especially in something like a car, where we don't appreciate any one individual part. We appreciate having a car.   But I think you have touched on a place where it seems to be kind of dishonest and disrespecful. Namely, computers and smartphones. A lot of planned obsolescence is actually much more \"We just didn't design it any better than it wanted to be\". Where it gets genuinely corrupt is where it seems like things are being designed to break. And that's what we see in this technology. Apple devices seem to consistently have flaws in them that have been inherited from previous designs, that were known about, and were breaking devices that just never got fixed. The means of fixing their devices is deliberately limited. The way they \"fix\" their devices gets a lot of criticism from device repair companies, who largely make their money from fixing thing that were supposed to be ridiculously expensive or unrepairable. For some reason, they're getting rid of things like headphones, while simultaneously releasing shitty headphones. It's not really on.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29.0,"score_ratio":17.125}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyin7do","c_root_id_B":"gyik0cd","created_at_utc_A":1621301401,"created_at_utc_B":1621299818,"score_A":274,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I really want to agree with you, but planned obsolescence does not actually follow the logic of \"this phone *must break* in 2 years\". It follows the logic of \"we don't care if this phone *only lasts* 2 years\". They don't intentionally design it to fail by a certain date (that's actually illegal), they just don't design it to last *beyond* a certain date and if it does, it's just a happy coincidence. They also ignore critical design flaws from time to time.  Planned obscelescence also revolves around making products difficult or prohibitively expensive to repair. For example, sealing the phone with glue, \"no user servicable parts\", \"warranty void if removed\"(also illegal but never really enforced), serializing chips, requiring custom proprietary tools for repairs, and only making parts\/software available to OEM manufacturers. The legality of all this is currently being debated(look up louis rossman on Youtube).","human_ref_B":"For me, planned obsolescence is most obvious and useful in the automobile industry. Engineers work hard to calculate the life of a vehicles components. In many ways this makes a lot of sense. There is no reason to build a part into a car that is designed to last a hundred years when the majority of the vehicles parts may not last longer than 20 years.  The items in a vehicle that relate to safety often have a calculated lifetime much longer than the rest of the vehicle.  And with automobiles the expected lifetime of the vehicle is indeed published. Usually not in years but in miles.  I do agree with you that some items seem to be manufactured intentionally to last a short time. To me this is more of a discussion of poor quality versus built in obsolescence.  Edited for grammer","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1583.0,"score_ratio":39.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyijc73","c_root_id_B":"gyie94j","created_at_utc_A":1621299471,"created_at_utc_B":1621296928,"score_A":89,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"I have a more direct suggestion, which I think would achieve the same goal of consumers being empowered, which is right to repair.  Planned obsolescence and their disclosures or lack thereof wouldn\u2019t be a problem (or as much of a problem) if the ability to affordably repair the product in a timely manner was possible and supported.  Apple throttling older phone\u2019s performances in the name of preserving battery life wouldn\u2019t be an issue if the batteries were easily replaceable.  If Apple went back to the removable battery like their older MacBook Pros, I wouldn\u2019t have to plan out 3 weeks of time where I wouldn\u2019t be able to use my laptop because I had to ship it off to get the battery replaced.  And so on and so forth. Even if companies had to disclose planned obsolescence, that would only help consumers realize when they need to replace their product. One could argue that this might indirectly lead to companies developing products with longer service lives to be competitive, but I don\u2019t really think that would happen because of perceived obsolescence. Instead, the ability to easily repair something that doesn\u2019t cost almost as much as totally replacing it would be much better for the life of the product, the user, and the environment.","human_ref_B":"> Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time.  I think you're trying to draw a clear line where none exists.  Apart from lightbulbs, I've never heard of any company using anything remotely that specific.  But that doesn't mean a company might not choose a particular part that might work solidly for anywhere from 6 months to 2 years and then fail suddenly  in some percent of cases even if that part is more expensive. Its not just cost savings.  Its considering the failure curve and trying to target something that works well for just enough time but then starts to break down. That doesn't mean the amount of time is specific and known though.  Or that they'll all fail.  Or that it'll always be the same part that causes the failure.  What about a non-critical part failing, such as the car radio or the AC or something which doesn't make it unusable.  The only way I can think of to really capture that for the consumer would be to require the company to do a lifespan analysis of each part of the device or machine and provide average lifespans for all of those.  Which is extremely hard to do in cases like a brand new type of thing that maybe hasn't been out for 5 years yet, so they really have no idea how many of them might make it to 10 years.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2543.0,"score_ratio":3.4230769231}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyint8m","c_root_id_B":"gyie94j","created_at_utc_A":1621301705,"created_at_utc_B":1621296928,"score_A":49,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"The timeframe is disclosed, it's called the warranty period.","human_ref_B":"> Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time.  I think you're trying to draw a clear line where none exists.  Apart from lightbulbs, I've never heard of any company using anything remotely that specific.  But that doesn't mean a company might not choose a particular part that might work solidly for anywhere from 6 months to 2 years and then fail suddenly  in some percent of cases even if that part is more expensive. Its not just cost savings.  Its considering the failure curve and trying to target something that works well for just enough time but then starts to break down. That doesn't mean the amount of time is specific and known though.  Or that they'll all fail.  Or that it'll always be the same part that causes the failure.  What about a non-critical part failing, such as the car radio or the AC or something which doesn't make it unusable.  The only way I can think of to really capture that for the consumer would be to require the company to do a lifespan analysis of each part of the device or machine and provide average lifespans for all of those.  Which is extremely hard to do in cases like a brand new type of thing that maybe hasn't been out for 5 years yet, so they really have no idea how many of them might make it to 10 years.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4777.0,"score_ratio":1.8846153846}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyin5ar","c_root_id_B":"gyint8m","created_at_utc_A":1621301372,"created_at_utc_B":1621301705,"score_A":16,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"The counter-argument is that engineering things to a certain standard is a significant cost, which of course is going to be passed on to consumers. And everything only needs to be designed to the standards that they expect to use it to. Naturally, market logic is going to dictate that the company that spends all its time and money manufacturing things to a standard that is higher quality, more expensive, and takes longer and is more complicated to build than your average product is probably going to fail to make the same money as the company that didn't do that. Of course, where that falls down is where companies manage to produce a superior product for not much more than a standard price, such that people will spend that extra on the name-brand version. Also, when companies design things too well, and don't charge enough, they often find that they can't make more money from that person, because that person has all of what they needed. As such, it loses them money to over-engineer. Also, people often don't pay for better, even if it's available, because they don't value the services they're using.    It therefore just doesn't make any economic sense to design things with parts that are designed to last twice as long as the actual thing. We're not going to pay for it, it's not going to give us better use of that product, and the reality is that it's not a good idea on an economic basis. Products do not need to be better than they have to be, and if we won't pay for better than it has to be, then it just doesn't make any sense to make that. Especially in something like a car, where we don't appreciate any one individual part. We appreciate having a car.   But I think you have touched on a place where it seems to be kind of dishonest and disrespecful. Namely, computers and smartphones. A lot of planned obsolescence is actually much more \"We just didn't design it any better than it wanted to be\". Where it gets genuinely corrupt is where it seems like things are being designed to break. And that's what we see in this technology. Apple devices seem to consistently have flaws in them that have been inherited from previous designs, that were known about, and were breaking devices that just never got fixed. The means of fixing their devices is deliberately limited. The way they \"fix\" their devices gets a lot of criticism from device repair companies, who largely make their money from fixing thing that were supposed to be ridiculously expensive or unrepairable. For some reason, they're getting rid of things like headphones, while simultaneously releasing shitty headphones. It's not really on.","human_ref_B":"The timeframe is disclosed, it's called the warranty period.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":333.0,"score_ratio":3.0625}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyik0cd","c_root_id_B":"gyint8m","created_at_utc_A":1621299818,"created_at_utc_B":1621301705,"score_A":7,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"For me, planned obsolescence is most obvious and useful in the automobile industry. Engineers work hard to calculate the life of a vehicles components. In many ways this makes a lot of sense. There is no reason to build a part into a car that is designed to last a hundred years when the majority of the vehicles parts may not last longer than 20 years.  The items in a vehicle that relate to safety often have a calculated lifetime much longer than the rest of the vehicle.  And with automobiles the expected lifetime of the vehicle is indeed published. Usually not in years but in miles.  I do agree with you that some items seem to be manufactured intentionally to last a short time. To me this is more of a discussion of poor quality versus built in obsolescence.  Edited for grammer","human_ref_B":"The timeframe is disclosed, it's called the warranty period.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1887.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyik0cd","c_root_id_B":"gyin5ar","created_at_utc_A":1621299818,"created_at_utc_B":1621301372,"score_A":7,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"For me, planned obsolescence is most obvious and useful in the automobile industry. Engineers work hard to calculate the life of a vehicles components. In many ways this makes a lot of sense. There is no reason to build a part into a car that is designed to last a hundred years when the majority of the vehicles parts may not last longer than 20 years.  The items in a vehicle that relate to safety often have a calculated lifetime much longer than the rest of the vehicle.  And with automobiles the expected lifetime of the vehicle is indeed published. Usually not in years but in miles.  I do agree with you that some items seem to be manufactured intentionally to last a short time. To me this is more of a discussion of poor quality versus built in obsolescence.  Edited for grammer","human_ref_B":"The counter-argument is that engineering things to a certain standard is a significant cost, which of course is going to be passed on to consumers. And everything only needs to be designed to the standards that they expect to use it to. Naturally, market logic is going to dictate that the company that spends all its time and money manufacturing things to a standard that is higher quality, more expensive, and takes longer and is more complicated to build than your average product is probably going to fail to make the same money as the company that didn't do that. Of course, where that falls down is where companies manage to produce a superior product for not much more than a standard price, such that people will spend that extra on the name-brand version. Also, when companies design things too well, and don't charge enough, they often find that they can't make more money from that person, because that person has all of what they needed. As such, it loses them money to over-engineer. Also, people often don't pay for better, even if it's available, because they don't value the services they're using.    It therefore just doesn't make any economic sense to design things with parts that are designed to last twice as long as the actual thing. We're not going to pay for it, it's not going to give us better use of that product, and the reality is that it's not a good idea on an economic basis. Products do not need to be better than they have to be, and if we won't pay for better than it has to be, then it just doesn't make any sense to make that. Especially in something like a car, where we don't appreciate any one individual part. We appreciate having a car.   But I think you have touched on a place where it seems to be kind of dishonest and disrespecful. Namely, computers and smartphones. A lot of planned obsolescence is actually much more \"We just didn't design it any better than it wanted to be\". Where it gets genuinely corrupt is where it seems like things are being designed to break. And that's what we see in this technology. Apple devices seem to consistently have flaws in them that have been inherited from previous designs, that were known about, and were breaking devices that just never got fixed. The means of fixing their devices is deliberately limited. The way they \"fix\" their devices gets a lot of criticism from device repair companies, who largely make their money from fixing thing that were supposed to be ridiculously expensive or unrepairable. For some reason, they're getting rid of things like headphones, while simultaneously releasing shitty headphones. It's not really on.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1554.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyir819","c_root_id_B":"gyiv8rt","created_at_utc_A":1621303428,"created_at_utc_B":1621305481,"score_A":12,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"That's not how planned obsolescence works. They don't make a fridge and say \"this will die exactly 2 years after you plug it in\" they say \"this has been created to last at minimum two years from plugging it in\". The former is illegal, the latter is generally thoroughly communicated through warranty standards. Take a brand fridge. When you buy it, depending brand and retailer, let's say it comes with a 5 year warranty. That is the manufacturer expressly telling you \"we are guaranteeing that this appliance has been made to last for at least 5 years and we will insure that it does.\"  I really don't know how much more communication you could want.","human_ref_B":"You can\u2019t make something that literally lasts forever. Some component will eventually fail, right? It makes some sense to literally then plan for and time all your components to likely fail at around the same time (you wouldn\u2019t make a screen to last 80 years on a phone that only lasts 10).  On the opposite side, I think I like the idea of them telling me how long they expect each component and the whole thing to last. They have that data, they should be open and honest and share it with consumers","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2053.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyiv8rt","c_root_id_B":"gyik0cd","created_at_utc_A":1621305481,"created_at_utc_B":1621299818,"score_A":14,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"You can\u2019t make something that literally lasts forever. Some component will eventually fail, right? It makes some sense to literally then plan for and time all your components to likely fail at around the same time (you wouldn\u2019t make a screen to last 80 years on a phone that only lasts 10).  On the opposite side, I think I like the idea of them telling me how long they expect each component and the whole thing to last. They have that data, they should be open and honest and share it with consumers","human_ref_B":"For me, planned obsolescence is most obvious and useful in the automobile industry. Engineers work hard to calculate the life of a vehicles components. In many ways this makes a lot of sense. There is no reason to build a part into a car that is designed to last a hundred years when the majority of the vehicles parts may not last longer than 20 years.  The items in a vehicle that relate to safety often have a calculated lifetime much longer than the rest of the vehicle.  And with automobiles the expected lifetime of the vehicle is indeed published. Usually not in years but in miles.  I do agree with you that some items seem to be manufactured intentionally to last a short time. To me this is more of a discussion of poor quality versus built in obsolescence.  Edited for grammer","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5663.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyik0cd","c_root_id_B":"gyir819","created_at_utc_A":1621299818,"created_at_utc_B":1621303428,"score_A":7,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"For me, planned obsolescence is most obvious and useful in the automobile industry. Engineers work hard to calculate the life of a vehicles components. In many ways this makes a lot of sense. There is no reason to build a part into a car that is designed to last a hundred years when the majority of the vehicles parts may not last longer than 20 years.  The items in a vehicle that relate to safety often have a calculated lifetime much longer than the rest of the vehicle.  And with automobiles the expected lifetime of the vehicle is indeed published. Usually not in years but in miles.  I do agree with you that some items seem to be manufactured intentionally to last a short time. To me this is more of a discussion of poor quality versus built in obsolescence.  Edited for grammer","human_ref_B":"That's not how planned obsolescence works. They don't make a fridge and say \"this will die exactly 2 years after you plug it in\" they say \"this has been created to last at minimum two years from plugging it in\". The former is illegal, the latter is generally thoroughly communicated through warranty standards. Take a brand fridge. When you buy it, depending brand and retailer, let's say it comes with a 5 year warranty. That is the manufacturer expressly telling you \"we are guaranteeing that this appliance has been made to last for at least 5 years and we will insure that it does.\"  I really don't know how much more communication you could want.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3610.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"nev5mz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"cmv: Planned obsolescence is the same as deliberately selling a defective product and the timeframe should be disclosed to the purchaser.  Firstly, planned obsolescence is different to using poor quality components materials for cost saving. Planned obsolescence (P.O) is deliberately including design flaws to ensure a product stops working or has reduced performance after a certain amount of time. It does not include items that need to stop working for safety reasons such as an expired gas detector.   As an example, there are two very similar phones that cost $500 each, one has a P.O date of 2 years, and the other has a P.O date of 5 years.  As each phone gets nearer to it\u2019s P.O date it\u2019s value approaches zero, so after 1 year the first phone is worth less than the second. The second phone represents a better investment.   It\u2019s not possible for consumers to make the best decision for their financial circumstances without knowing the P.O date and the manufacturer should have to disclose it.","c_root_id_A":"gyik0cd","c_root_id_B":"gyj1vgl","created_at_utc_A":1621299818,"created_at_utc_B":1621309110,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"For me, planned obsolescence is most obvious and useful in the automobile industry. Engineers work hard to calculate the life of a vehicles components. In many ways this makes a lot of sense. There is no reason to build a part into a car that is designed to last a hundred years when the majority of the vehicles parts may not last longer than 20 years.  The items in a vehicle that relate to safety often have a calculated lifetime much longer than the rest of the vehicle.  And with automobiles the expected lifetime of the vehicle is indeed published. Usually not in years but in miles.  I do agree with you that some items seem to be manufactured intentionally to last a short time. To me this is more of a discussion of poor quality versus built in obsolescence.  Edited for grammer","human_ref_B":"Planned obsolescence is a myth shoved at you by bloggers, for the most part.  There was once a conspiracy about lightbulbs to do that. And hey it got found out because people tracked it and found it out! And I'm not saying it can't happen again. But happening in \"the majority\" of products today? Complete fucking bullshit. Especially phones, do you have any idea how fucking competitive phones are? There are companies straining at losing millions, tens of millions, more a year just in the hopes of one day making any money at all off it. Do you really think they have the time to \"planned obsolescence\" shit, let alone being able to somehow guarantee you'll buy the same brand of phone next time?  Fighting right to repair, that's a conspiracy, that's right in front of your face for everyone to see. Fixing insulin prices in America, that's a conspiracy, again right in front of your face for everyone to see. Even fighting awareness and action on climate change, again right in your face, as much as possible, everyone knows the oil companies do it. Secret \"Planned Obsolescence\" cabals meeting to make your shit not work for highly competitive businesses?  Might as well say the lizard people are teaming up with the Jews to control you through the vaccine chips.   Always remember that conspiracies exist, and that they pretty much always get outed one way or another because people just fucking talk about shit. Thus the tried and true tactic of \"just shove the conspiracy in peoples faces and try to make it so they can't do anything about it\" is vastly preferred to some secret underground meeting in the shadows.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9292.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"gllq6a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The current US bailouts for all the large companies is unfair to both the US taxpayers, small businesses, and every company that responsibly managed their money in recent years Recently, the US government has given out trillions in bailouts to the airline, retail, hospitality, etc industries. However, as a tax payer, I'm outraged that these large corporations are getting these handouts from the government and getting rewarded for their greedy behavior. The bank bailouts of 08 made me sick and I can't believe we're doing this again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes due to the bank's irresponsible and illegal behavior, and yet all these bankers made out with millions.  Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends. Especially when a large reason these companies found so much excess money in the last couple years was an egregious gifted tax cut from the government. Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Furthermore, this punishes the companies that actually acted responsibly with their capital. In normal circumstances, this would be their opportunity to gain market share and even buy up some of the failing companies. Instead, they are robbed of this opportunity. The way our market works is that feedback is all seen through the lens of risk and reward. When a company decides to spend almost all of their profits on buybacks, they are taking the risk that a black swan event in the future can cause bankruptcy. Now we are removing the incentive for prudent decision making for companies. What's to stop companies of only acting recklessly since they know the government will always bail them out?  Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Before anyone says it, I understand bailouts are not free money. They're a loan by the government. But the interest rates are typically much lower than they would command in the free market. The government should either charge a high interest rate to compensate for that risk, or inject money into these companies through equity investments that could be put in a blind trust. At least in this scenario, the bailout is seen through the lens of a prudent investment. It's also pricing in the risks of investing in these companies since we never know what will happen to them in the future. If they don't want it, they can find someone else to give them money or go bankrupt. It's not like these companies will just disappear, there will be a buyer somewhere out there.   No one is ENTITLED to a low interest loan from the government, especially these mega corporations who barely pay above minimum wage for their lowest employees while constantly upping the C-suite's compensation. By handing out bailouts that actually reflect the risk for these companies, we can actually punish the C-Suite and investors who squeezed every bit of profit out of the company during good times since these deals will negatively affect the stock price. The bailouts in its current form reward the CEOs and investors who already cashed out in the past couple of years pushing for buybacks and increased dividends.","c_root_id_A":"fqymrs1","c_root_id_B":"fqycpv3","created_at_utc_A":1589751126,"created_at_utc_B":1589746465,"score_A":654,"score_B":184,"human_ref_A":"Bailouts aren\u2019t about \u201cfairness,\u201d they\u2019re measures taken to minimize the damage of a steep economic downturn.   Should hundreds or thousands of employees really suffer because executives made some bad decisions? Certainly THEY should be held accountable but all the people on the front lines? Not to mention the countless small businesses directly depending on their economic relationship to said large businesses?","human_ref_B":"You make a lot of points, so I can't address them all but I will do a few.  >Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends.  The airline industry was impacted far more than most other businesses because they have the opposite seasonality to most trades. Most firms make the most money over the Christmas \/ winter period (hence 'Black Friday'), so when the shutdowns hit, they were still riding high on their Christmas trading.  In contrast, most airlines lose money over the autumn \/ winter, and make it all back during the summer. So when the shutdown hit, they were at their absolute lowest period and were now completely deprived of the ability to bring their balance sheets back into line.   So this wasn't 'a few months of stagnant revenue' it was 'the period of the year in which we cover all our costs and debt interest has been completely removed.'   Also, your first two sentences are contradictory. The businesses were profitable and they returned those profits to their investors. The executives were paid bonuses because they had run the business successfully.   >Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.  It's impossible for any commercial insurer to have offered any kind of coverage for this (because all the insured people would claim at once, and expect trillions of dollars in cash). It's absurd to expect a business to sit on an entire year's worth of sales in cash, rather than expand or develop new products.   You highlight corporate greed, but hasn't the real damage been the millions of people who have already been laid off? A sacrifice you are willing to make?   You think that we should just throw a few more millions on the unemployment heap, and paying welfare checks would be cheaper in the long term than just loaning some money to their employer, so they can still have jobs once the restrictions are lifted?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4661.0,"score_ratio":3.5543478261}
+{"post_id":"gllq6a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The current US bailouts for all the large companies is unfair to both the US taxpayers, small businesses, and every company that responsibly managed their money in recent years Recently, the US government has given out trillions in bailouts to the airline, retail, hospitality, etc industries. However, as a tax payer, I'm outraged that these large corporations are getting these handouts from the government and getting rewarded for their greedy behavior. The bank bailouts of 08 made me sick and I can't believe we're doing this again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes due to the bank's irresponsible and illegal behavior, and yet all these bankers made out with millions.  Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends. Especially when a large reason these companies found so much excess money in the last couple years was an egregious gifted tax cut from the government. Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Furthermore, this punishes the companies that actually acted responsibly with their capital. In normal circumstances, this would be their opportunity to gain market share and even buy up some of the failing companies. Instead, they are robbed of this opportunity. The way our market works is that feedback is all seen through the lens of risk and reward. When a company decides to spend almost all of their profits on buybacks, they are taking the risk that a black swan event in the future can cause bankruptcy. Now we are removing the incentive for prudent decision making for companies. What's to stop companies of only acting recklessly since they know the government will always bail them out?  Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Before anyone says it, I understand bailouts are not free money. They're a loan by the government. But the interest rates are typically much lower than they would command in the free market. The government should either charge a high interest rate to compensate for that risk, or inject money into these companies through equity investments that could be put in a blind trust. At least in this scenario, the bailout is seen through the lens of a prudent investment. It's also pricing in the risks of investing in these companies since we never know what will happen to them in the future. If they don't want it, they can find someone else to give them money or go bankrupt. It's not like these companies will just disappear, there will be a buyer somewhere out there.   No one is ENTITLED to a low interest loan from the government, especially these mega corporations who barely pay above minimum wage for their lowest employees while constantly upping the C-suite's compensation. By handing out bailouts that actually reflect the risk for these companies, we can actually punish the C-Suite and investors who squeezed every bit of profit out of the company during good times since these deals will negatively affect the stock price. The bailouts in its current form reward the CEOs and investors who already cashed out in the past couple of years pushing for buybacks and increased dividends.","c_root_id_A":"fqymrs1","c_root_id_B":"fqyit5t","created_at_utc_A":1589751126,"created_at_utc_B":1589749269,"score_A":654,"score_B":66,"human_ref_A":"Bailouts aren\u2019t about \u201cfairness,\u201d they\u2019re measures taken to minimize the damage of a steep economic downturn.   Should hundreds or thousands of employees really suffer because executives made some bad decisions? Certainly THEY should be held accountable but all the people on the front lines? Not to mention the countless small businesses directly depending on their economic relationship to said large businesses?","human_ref_B":"> Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts?  https:\/\/home.treasury.gov\/policy-issues\/cares\/assistance-for-small-businesses  They\u2019re getting bailed out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1857.0,"score_ratio":9.9090909091}
+{"post_id":"gllq6a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The current US bailouts for all the large companies is unfair to both the US taxpayers, small businesses, and every company that responsibly managed their money in recent years Recently, the US government has given out trillions in bailouts to the airline, retail, hospitality, etc industries. However, as a tax payer, I'm outraged that these large corporations are getting these handouts from the government and getting rewarded for their greedy behavior. The bank bailouts of 08 made me sick and I can't believe we're doing this again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes due to the bank's irresponsible and illegal behavior, and yet all these bankers made out with millions.  Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends. Especially when a large reason these companies found so much excess money in the last couple years was an egregious gifted tax cut from the government. Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Furthermore, this punishes the companies that actually acted responsibly with their capital. In normal circumstances, this would be their opportunity to gain market share and even buy up some of the failing companies. Instead, they are robbed of this opportunity. The way our market works is that feedback is all seen through the lens of risk and reward. When a company decides to spend almost all of their profits on buybacks, they are taking the risk that a black swan event in the future can cause bankruptcy. Now we are removing the incentive for prudent decision making for companies. What's to stop companies of only acting recklessly since they know the government will always bail them out?  Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Before anyone says it, I understand bailouts are not free money. They're a loan by the government. But the interest rates are typically much lower than they would command in the free market. The government should either charge a high interest rate to compensate for that risk, or inject money into these companies through equity investments that could be put in a blind trust. At least in this scenario, the bailout is seen through the lens of a prudent investment. It's also pricing in the risks of investing in these companies since we never know what will happen to them in the future. If they don't want it, they can find someone else to give them money or go bankrupt. It's not like these companies will just disappear, there will be a buyer somewhere out there.   No one is ENTITLED to a low interest loan from the government, especially these mega corporations who barely pay above minimum wage for their lowest employees while constantly upping the C-suite's compensation. By handing out bailouts that actually reflect the risk for these companies, we can actually punish the C-Suite and investors who squeezed every bit of profit out of the company during good times since these deals will negatively affect the stock price. The bailouts in its current form reward the CEOs and investors who already cashed out in the past couple of years pushing for buybacks and increased dividends.","c_root_id_A":"fqymrs1","c_root_id_B":"fqyk6bh","created_at_utc_A":1589751126,"created_at_utc_B":1589749911,"score_A":654,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"Bailouts aren\u2019t about \u201cfairness,\u201d they\u2019re measures taken to minimize the damage of a steep economic downturn.   Should hundreds or thousands of employees really suffer because executives made some bad decisions? Certainly THEY should be held accountable but all the people on the front lines? Not to mention the countless small businesses directly depending on their economic relationship to said large businesses?","human_ref_B":"The Covid bailouts are not because these are poorly run companies. It\u2019s because a global pandemic has required the government to order businesses to shutdown for national health.   It\u2019s a liquidity crisis, not a bunch of zombie companies.  The businesses hit hardest are not the worst run. They are the ones that require face to face interaction, and frankly employ the majority of the us workforce.  Greater good problems are a big part of the reason we have government. We pay taxes so the government can step in and solve problems like this.  If you want my business shut down for the greater good, okay, but help me not lose everything in the meantime. Otherwise you create bad incentives where people won\u2019t close they\u2019re business.  And expecting companies to hold cash for a once in a lifetime event is a super inefficient use of that cash, which could otherwise go to new innovations.  (And I know people harp on the buybacks, but buy backs don\u2019t mean that money isn\u2019t used for innovation. Buybacks are companies returning money to shareholders. What do those shareholders do with the cash? They tend to invest it, often in new businesses who have uses for the cash to innovate.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1215.0,"score_ratio":19.8181818182}
+{"post_id":"gllq6a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The current US bailouts for all the large companies is unfair to both the US taxpayers, small businesses, and every company that responsibly managed their money in recent years Recently, the US government has given out trillions in bailouts to the airline, retail, hospitality, etc industries. However, as a tax payer, I'm outraged that these large corporations are getting these handouts from the government and getting rewarded for their greedy behavior. The bank bailouts of 08 made me sick and I can't believe we're doing this again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes due to the bank's irresponsible and illegal behavior, and yet all these bankers made out with millions.  Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends. Especially when a large reason these companies found so much excess money in the last couple years was an egregious gifted tax cut from the government. Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Furthermore, this punishes the companies that actually acted responsibly with their capital. In normal circumstances, this would be their opportunity to gain market share and even buy up some of the failing companies. Instead, they are robbed of this opportunity. The way our market works is that feedback is all seen through the lens of risk and reward. When a company decides to spend almost all of their profits on buybacks, they are taking the risk that a black swan event in the future can cause bankruptcy. Now we are removing the incentive for prudent decision making for companies. What's to stop companies of only acting recklessly since they know the government will always bail them out?  Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Before anyone says it, I understand bailouts are not free money. They're a loan by the government. But the interest rates are typically much lower than they would command in the free market. The government should either charge a high interest rate to compensate for that risk, or inject money into these companies through equity investments that could be put in a blind trust. At least in this scenario, the bailout is seen through the lens of a prudent investment. It's also pricing in the risks of investing in these companies since we never know what will happen to them in the future. If they don't want it, they can find someone else to give them money or go bankrupt. It's not like these companies will just disappear, there will be a buyer somewhere out there.   No one is ENTITLED to a low interest loan from the government, especially these mega corporations who barely pay above minimum wage for their lowest employees while constantly upping the C-suite's compensation. By handing out bailouts that actually reflect the risk for these companies, we can actually punish the C-Suite and investors who squeezed every bit of profit out of the company during good times since these deals will negatively affect the stock price. The bailouts in its current form reward the CEOs and investors who already cashed out in the past couple of years pushing for buybacks and increased dividends.","c_root_id_A":"fqyfkog","c_root_id_B":"fqymrs1","created_at_utc_A":1589747785,"created_at_utc_B":1589751126,"score_A":14,"score_B":654,"human_ref_A":"> nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.  Even if the airlines were absolutely ready for a downturn in the economy, what happened the last couple months is *much* worse than the worst case scenario of a recession. No one is flying right now, in a downturn fewer people would be flying.  Also you only talk about the executives getting money out of this but this helps the employees much more. Executives would be fine if the airlines went under, the mechanics and flight attendants and others would be completely screwed if the airlines went under, because if you're not bailing out any of the airlines most if not all of them are going under.","human_ref_B":"Bailouts aren\u2019t about \u201cfairness,\u201d they\u2019re measures taken to minimize the damage of a steep economic downturn.   Should hundreds or thousands of employees really suffer because executives made some bad decisions? Certainly THEY should be held accountable but all the people on the front lines? Not to mention the countless small businesses directly depending on their economic relationship to said large businesses?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3341.0,"score_ratio":46.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"gllq6a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The current US bailouts for all the large companies is unfair to both the US taxpayers, small businesses, and every company that responsibly managed their money in recent years Recently, the US government has given out trillions in bailouts to the airline, retail, hospitality, etc industries. However, as a tax payer, I'm outraged that these large corporations are getting these handouts from the government and getting rewarded for their greedy behavior. The bank bailouts of 08 made me sick and I can't believe we're doing this again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes due to the bank's irresponsible and illegal behavior, and yet all these bankers made out with millions.  Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends. Especially when a large reason these companies found so much excess money in the last couple years was an egregious gifted tax cut from the government. Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Furthermore, this punishes the companies that actually acted responsibly with their capital. In normal circumstances, this would be their opportunity to gain market share and even buy up some of the failing companies. Instead, they are robbed of this opportunity. The way our market works is that feedback is all seen through the lens of risk and reward. When a company decides to spend almost all of their profits on buybacks, they are taking the risk that a black swan event in the future can cause bankruptcy. Now we are removing the incentive for prudent decision making for companies. What's to stop companies of only acting recklessly since they know the government will always bail them out?  Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Before anyone says it, I understand bailouts are not free money. They're a loan by the government. But the interest rates are typically much lower than they would command in the free market. The government should either charge a high interest rate to compensate for that risk, or inject money into these companies through equity investments that could be put in a blind trust. At least in this scenario, the bailout is seen through the lens of a prudent investment. It's also pricing in the risks of investing in these companies since we never know what will happen to them in the future. If they don't want it, they can find someone else to give them money or go bankrupt. It's not like these companies will just disappear, there will be a buyer somewhere out there.   No one is ENTITLED to a low interest loan from the government, especially these mega corporations who barely pay above minimum wage for their lowest employees while constantly upping the C-suite's compensation. By handing out bailouts that actually reflect the risk for these companies, we can actually punish the C-Suite and investors who squeezed every bit of profit out of the company during good times since these deals will negatively affect the stock price. The bailouts in its current form reward the CEOs and investors who already cashed out in the past couple of years pushing for buybacks and increased dividends.","c_root_id_A":"fqymrs1","c_root_id_B":"fqyiucl","created_at_utc_A":1589751126,"created_at_utc_B":1589749284,"score_A":654,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Bailouts aren\u2019t about \u201cfairness,\u201d they\u2019re measures taken to minimize the damage of a steep economic downturn.   Should hundreds or thousands of employees really suffer because executives made some bad decisions? Certainly THEY should be held accountable but all the people on the front lines? Not to mention the countless small businesses directly depending on their economic relationship to said large businesses?","human_ref_B":"> Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Is your position that for a company to be responsible, it has to be prepared for a situation where revenue collapses entirely for several months? This is very different from recessions of the past, which occur over a longer period of time, allowing companies to scale down expenses as the recession unfolds. For many companies, this was basically an overnight elimination of nearly all of their revenue for an indefinite period of time. I don't think it's reasonable to expect any company to be prepared for that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1842.0,"score_ratio":72.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"gllq6a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The current US bailouts for all the large companies is unfair to both the US taxpayers, small businesses, and every company that responsibly managed their money in recent years Recently, the US government has given out trillions in bailouts to the airline, retail, hospitality, etc industries. However, as a tax payer, I'm outraged that these large corporations are getting these handouts from the government and getting rewarded for their greedy behavior. The bank bailouts of 08 made me sick and I can't believe we're doing this again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes due to the bank's irresponsible and illegal behavior, and yet all these bankers made out with millions.  Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends. Especially when a large reason these companies found so much excess money in the last couple years was an egregious gifted tax cut from the government. Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Furthermore, this punishes the companies that actually acted responsibly with their capital. In normal circumstances, this would be their opportunity to gain market share and even buy up some of the failing companies. Instead, they are robbed of this opportunity. The way our market works is that feedback is all seen through the lens of risk and reward. When a company decides to spend almost all of their profits on buybacks, they are taking the risk that a black swan event in the future can cause bankruptcy. Now we are removing the incentive for prudent decision making for companies. What's to stop companies of only acting recklessly since they know the government will always bail them out?  Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Before anyone says it, I understand bailouts are not free money. They're a loan by the government. But the interest rates are typically much lower than they would command in the free market. The government should either charge a high interest rate to compensate for that risk, or inject money into these companies through equity investments that could be put in a blind trust. At least in this scenario, the bailout is seen through the lens of a prudent investment. It's also pricing in the risks of investing in these companies since we never know what will happen to them in the future. If they don't want it, they can find someone else to give them money or go bankrupt. It's not like these companies will just disappear, there will be a buyer somewhere out there.   No one is ENTITLED to a low interest loan from the government, especially these mega corporations who barely pay above minimum wage for their lowest employees while constantly upping the C-suite's compensation. By handing out bailouts that actually reflect the risk for these companies, we can actually punish the C-Suite and investors who squeezed every bit of profit out of the company during good times since these deals will negatively affect the stock price. The bailouts in its current form reward the CEOs and investors who already cashed out in the past couple of years pushing for buybacks and increased dividends.","c_root_id_A":"fqyit5t","c_root_id_B":"fqyfkog","created_at_utc_A":1589749269,"created_at_utc_B":1589747785,"score_A":66,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"> Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts?  https:\/\/home.treasury.gov\/policy-issues\/cares\/assistance-for-small-businesses  They\u2019re getting bailed out.","human_ref_B":"> nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.  Even if the airlines were absolutely ready for a downturn in the economy, what happened the last couple months is *much* worse than the worst case scenario of a recession. No one is flying right now, in a downturn fewer people would be flying.  Also you only talk about the executives getting money out of this but this helps the employees much more. Executives would be fine if the airlines went under, the mechanics and flight attendants and others would be completely screwed if the airlines went under, because if you're not bailing out any of the airlines most if not all of them are going under.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1484.0,"score_ratio":4.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"gllq6a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The current US bailouts for all the large companies is unfair to both the US taxpayers, small businesses, and every company that responsibly managed their money in recent years Recently, the US government has given out trillions in bailouts to the airline, retail, hospitality, etc industries. However, as a tax payer, I'm outraged that these large corporations are getting these handouts from the government and getting rewarded for their greedy behavior. The bank bailouts of 08 made me sick and I can't believe we're doing this again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes due to the bank's irresponsible and illegal behavior, and yet all these bankers made out with millions.  Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends. Especially when a large reason these companies found so much excess money in the last couple years was an egregious gifted tax cut from the government. Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Furthermore, this punishes the companies that actually acted responsibly with their capital. In normal circumstances, this would be their opportunity to gain market share and even buy up some of the failing companies. Instead, they are robbed of this opportunity. The way our market works is that feedback is all seen through the lens of risk and reward. When a company decides to spend almost all of their profits on buybacks, they are taking the risk that a black swan event in the future can cause bankruptcy. Now we are removing the incentive for prudent decision making for companies. What's to stop companies of only acting recklessly since they know the government will always bail them out?  Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Before anyone says it, I understand bailouts are not free money. They're a loan by the government. But the interest rates are typically much lower than they would command in the free market. The government should either charge a high interest rate to compensate for that risk, or inject money into these companies through equity investments that could be put in a blind trust. At least in this scenario, the bailout is seen through the lens of a prudent investment. It's also pricing in the risks of investing in these companies since we never know what will happen to them in the future. If they don't want it, they can find someone else to give them money or go bankrupt. It's not like these companies will just disappear, there will be a buyer somewhere out there.   No one is ENTITLED to a low interest loan from the government, especially these mega corporations who barely pay above minimum wage for their lowest employees while constantly upping the C-suite's compensation. By handing out bailouts that actually reflect the risk for these companies, we can actually punish the C-Suite and investors who squeezed every bit of profit out of the company during good times since these deals will negatively affect the stock price. The bailouts in its current form reward the CEOs and investors who already cashed out in the past couple of years pushing for buybacks and increased dividends.","c_root_id_A":"fqyrk72","c_root_id_B":"fqyk6bh","created_at_utc_A":1589753376,"created_at_utc_B":1589749911,"score_A":52,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"> Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Here's a visual breakdown of the last stimulus.  30% of the last stimulus went directly to individuals via direct assistance and expanded unemployment benefits. 19% went to small business loans (75% of each loan is meant to go to employee benefits).   9% went to public services like hospitals and food banks and 17% went to state and local governments, with the majority going to covid response or schools.   Only 25% of the last stimulus bill went to large corporations, including airlines and other companies important for national security, with the majority in the form of loans.","human_ref_B":"The Covid bailouts are not because these are poorly run companies. It\u2019s because a global pandemic has required the government to order businesses to shutdown for national health.   It\u2019s a liquidity crisis, not a bunch of zombie companies.  The businesses hit hardest are not the worst run. They are the ones that require face to face interaction, and frankly employ the majority of the us workforce.  Greater good problems are a big part of the reason we have government. We pay taxes so the government can step in and solve problems like this.  If you want my business shut down for the greater good, okay, but help me not lose everything in the meantime. Otherwise you create bad incentives where people won\u2019t close they\u2019re business.  And expecting companies to hold cash for a once in a lifetime event is a super inefficient use of that cash, which could otherwise go to new innovations.  (And I know people harp on the buybacks, but buy backs don\u2019t mean that money isn\u2019t used for innovation. Buybacks are companies returning money to shareholders. What do those shareholders do with the cash? They tend to invest it, often in new businesses who have uses for the cash to innovate.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3465.0,"score_ratio":1.5757575758}
+{"post_id":"gllq6a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The current US bailouts for all the large companies is unfair to both the US taxpayers, small businesses, and every company that responsibly managed their money in recent years Recently, the US government has given out trillions in bailouts to the airline, retail, hospitality, etc industries. However, as a tax payer, I'm outraged that these large corporations are getting these handouts from the government and getting rewarded for their greedy behavior. The bank bailouts of 08 made me sick and I can't believe we're doing this again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes due to the bank's irresponsible and illegal behavior, and yet all these bankers made out with millions.  Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends. Especially when a large reason these companies found so much excess money in the last couple years was an egregious gifted tax cut from the government. Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Furthermore, this punishes the companies that actually acted responsibly with their capital. In normal circumstances, this would be their opportunity to gain market share and even buy up some of the failing companies. Instead, they are robbed of this opportunity. The way our market works is that feedback is all seen through the lens of risk and reward. When a company decides to spend almost all of their profits on buybacks, they are taking the risk that a black swan event in the future can cause bankruptcy. Now we are removing the incentive for prudent decision making for companies. What's to stop companies of only acting recklessly since they know the government will always bail them out?  Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Before anyone says it, I understand bailouts are not free money. They're a loan by the government. But the interest rates are typically much lower than they would command in the free market. The government should either charge a high interest rate to compensate for that risk, or inject money into these companies through equity investments that could be put in a blind trust. At least in this scenario, the bailout is seen through the lens of a prudent investment. It's also pricing in the risks of investing in these companies since we never know what will happen to them in the future. If they don't want it, they can find someone else to give them money or go bankrupt. It's not like these companies will just disappear, there will be a buyer somewhere out there.   No one is ENTITLED to a low interest loan from the government, especially these mega corporations who barely pay above minimum wage for their lowest employees while constantly upping the C-suite's compensation. By handing out bailouts that actually reflect the risk for these companies, we can actually punish the C-Suite and investors who squeezed every bit of profit out of the company during good times since these deals will negatively affect the stock price. The bailouts in its current form reward the CEOs and investors who already cashed out in the past couple of years pushing for buybacks and increased dividends.","c_root_id_A":"fqyrk72","c_root_id_B":"fqyfkog","created_at_utc_A":1589753376,"created_at_utc_B":1589747785,"score_A":52,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"> Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Here's a visual breakdown of the last stimulus.  30% of the last stimulus went directly to individuals via direct assistance and expanded unemployment benefits. 19% went to small business loans (75% of each loan is meant to go to employee benefits).   9% went to public services like hospitals and food banks and 17% went to state and local governments, with the majority going to covid response or schools.   Only 25% of the last stimulus bill went to large corporations, including airlines and other companies important for national security, with the majority in the form of loans.","human_ref_B":"> nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.  Even if the airlines were absolutely ready for a downturn in the economy, what happened the last couple months is *much* worse than the worst case scenario of a recession. No one is flying right now, in a downturn fewer people would be flying.  Also you only talk about the executives getting money out of this but this helps the employees much more. Executives would be fine if the airlines went under, the mechanics and flight attendants and others would be completely screwed if the airlines went under, because if you're not bailing out any of the airlines most if not all of them are going under.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5591.0,"score_ratio":3.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"gllq6a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The current US bailouts for all the large companies is unfair to both the US taxpayers, small businesses, and every company that responsibly managed their money in recent years Recently, the US government has given out trillions in bailouts to the airline, retail, hospitality, etc industries. However, as a tax payer, I'm outraged that these large corporations are getting these handouts from the government and getting rewarded for their greedy behavior. The bank bailouts of 08 made me sick and I can't believe we're doing this again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes due to the bank's irresponsible and illegal behavior, and yet all these bankers made out with millions.  Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends. Especially when a large reason these companies found so much excess money in the last couple years was an egregious gifted tax cut from the government. Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Furthermore, this punishes the companies that actually acted responsibly with their capital. In normal circumstances, this would be their opportunity to gain market share and even buy up some of the failing companies. Instead, they are robbed of this opportunity. The way our market works is that feedback is all seen through the lens of risk and reward. When a company decides to spend almost all of their profits on buybacks, they are taking the risk that a black swan event in the future can cause bankruptcy. Now we are removing the incentive for prudent decision making for companies. What's to stop companies of only acting recklessly since they know the government will always bail them out?  Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Before anyone says it, I understand bailouts are not free money. They're a loan by the government. But the interest rates are typically much lower than they would command in the free market. The government should either charge a high interest rate to compensate for that risk, or inject money into these companies through equity investments that could be put in a blind trust. At least in this scenario, the bailout is seen through the lens of a prudent investment. It's also pricing in the risks of investing in these companies since we never know what will happen to them in the future. If they don't want it, they can find someone else to give them money or go bankrupt. It's not like these companies will just disappear, there will be a buyer somewhere out there.   No one is ENTITLED to a low interest loan from the government, especially these mega corporations who barely pay above minimum wage for their lowest employees while constantly upping the C-suite's compensation. By handing out bailouts that actually reflect the risk for these companies, we can actually punish the C-Suite and investors who squeezed every bit of profit out of the company during good times since these deals will negatively affect the stock price. The bailouts in its current form reward the CEOs and investors who already cashed out in the past couple of years pushing for buybacks and increased dividends.","c_root_id_A":"fqyrk72","c_root_id_B":"fqyiucl","created_at_utc_A":1589753376,"created_at_utc_B":1589749284,"score_A":52,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"> Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Here's a visual breakdown of the last stimulus.  30% of the last stimulus went directly to individuals via direct assistance and expanded unemployment benefits. 19% went to small business loans (75% of each loan is meant to go to employee benefits).   9% went to public services like hospitals and food banks and 17% went to state and local governments, with the majority going to covid response or schools.   Only 25% of the last stimulus bill went to large corporations, including airlines and other companies important for national security, with the majority in the form of loans.","human_ref_B":"> Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Is your position that for a company to be responsible, it has to be prepared for a situation where revenue collapses entirely for several months? This is very different from recessions of the past, which occur over a longer period of time, allowing companies to scale down expenses as the recession unfolds. For many companies, this was basically an overnight elimination of nearly all of their revenue for an indefinite period of time. I don't think it's reasonable to expect any company to be prepared for that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4092.0,"score_ratio":5.7777777778}
+{"post_id":"gllq6a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The current US bailouts for all the large companies is unfair to both the US taxpayers, small businesses, and every company that responsibly managed their money in recent years Recently, the US government has given out trillions in bailouts to the airline, retail, hospitality, etc industries. However, as a tax payer, I'm outraged that these large corporations are getting these handouts from the government and getting rewarded for their greedy behavior. The bank bailouts of 08 made me sick and I can't believe we're doing this again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes due to the bank's irresponsible and illegal behavior, and yet all these bankers made out with millions.  Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends. Especially when a large reason these companies found so much excess money in the last couple years was an egregious gifted tax cut from the government. Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Furthermore, this punishes the companies that actually acted responsibly with their capital. In normal circumstances, this would be their opportunity to gain market share and even buy up some of the failing companies. Instead, they are robbed of this opportunity. The way our market works is that feedback is all seen through the lens of risk and reward. When a company decides to spend almost all of their profits on buybacks, they are taking the risk that a black swan event in the future can cause bankruptcy. Now we are removing the incentive for prudent decision making for companies. What's to stop companies of only acting recklessly since they know the government will always bail them out?  Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Before anyone says it, I understand bailouts are not free money. They're a loan by the government. But the interest rates are typically much lower than they would command in the free market. The government should either charge a high interest rate to compensate for that risk, or inject money into these companies through equity investments that could be put in a blind trust. At least in this scenario, the bailout is seen through the lens of a prudent investment. It's also pricing in the risks of investing in these companies since we never know what will happen to them in the future. If they don't want it, they can find someone else to give them money or go bankrupt. It's not like these companies will just disappear, there will be a buyer somewhere out there.   No one is ENTITLED to a low interest loan from the government, especially these mega corporations who barely pay above minimum wage for their lowest employees while constantly upping the C-suite's compensation. By handing out bailouts that actually reflect the risk for these companies, we can actually punish the C-Suite and investors who squeezed every bit of profit out of the company during good times since these deals will negatively affect the stock price. The bailouts in its current form reward the CEOs and investors who already cashed out in the past couple of years pushing for buybacks and increased dividends.","c_root_id_A":"fqyfkog","c_root_id_B":"fqyk6bh","created_at_utc_A":1589747785,"created_at_utc_B":1589749911,"score_A":14,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"> nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.  Even if the airlines were absolutely ready for a downturn in the economy, what happened the last couple months is *much* worse than the worst case scenario of a recession. No one is flying right now, in a downturn fewer people would be flying.  Also you only talk about the executives getting money out of this but this helps the employees much more. Executives would be fine if the airlines went under, the mechanics and flight attendants and others would be completely screwed if the airlines went under, because if you're not bailing out any of the airlines most if not all of them are going under.","human_ref_B":"The Covid bailouts are not because these are poorly run companies. It\u2019s because a global pandemic has required the government to order businesses to shutdown for national health.   It\u2019s a liquidity crisis, not a bunch of zombie companies.  The businesses hit hardest are not the worst run. They are the ones that require face to face interaction, and frankly employ the majority of the us workforce.  Greater good problems are a big part of the reason we have government. We pay taxes so the government can step in and solve problems like this.  If you want my business shut down for the greater good, okay, but help me not lose everything in the meantime. Otherwise you create bad incentives where people won\u2019t close they\u2019re business.  And expecting companies to hold cash for a once in a lifetime event is a super inefficient use of that cash, which could otherwise go to new innovations.  (And I know people harp on the buybacks, but buy backs don\u2019t mean that money isn\u2019t used for innovation. Buybacks are companies returning money to shareholders. What do those shareholders do with the cash? They tend to invest it, often in new businesses who have uses for the cash to innovate.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2126.0,"score_ratio":2.3571428571}
+{"post_id":"gllq6a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The current US bailouts for all the large companies is unfair to both the US taxpayers, small businesses, and every company that responsibly managed their money in recent years Recently, the US government has given out trillions in bailouts to the airline, retail, hospitality, etc industries. However, as a tax payer, I'm outraged that these large corporations are getting these handouts from the government and getting rewarded for their greedy behavior. The bank bailouts of 08 made me sick and I can't believe we're doing this again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes due to the bank's irresponsible and illegal behavior, and yet all these bankers made out with millions.  Take the airline industry for example. 96% of their Free Cash Flow was spent on stock buybacks this past decade. These C-suite executives and investors made millions off this type of behavior despite not creating any type of value for both the company and for their employees. If your company can't last a few months of stagnant revenue, you shouldn't be spending all that money on buybacks and dividends. Especially when a large reason these companies found so much excess money in the last couple years was an egregious gifted tax cut from the government. Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Furthermore, this punishes the companies that actually acted responsibly with their capital. In normal circumstances, this would be their opportunity to gain market share and even buy up some of the failing companies. Instead, they are robbed of this opportunity. The way our market works is that feedback is all seen through the lens of risk and reward. When a company decides to spend almost all of their profits on buybacks, they are taking the risk that a black swan event in the future can cause bankruptcy. Now we are removing the incentive for prudent decision making for companies. What's to stop companies of only acting recklessly since they know the government will always bail them out?  Lastly, lots of small businesses are going bankrupt everyday. Where are their bailouts? Why should large companies with every advantage in the world be given this lifeline for acting so irresponsibly, when normal everyday people struggling to get by are not allotted this same opportunity.  Before anyone says it, I understand bailouts are not free money. They're a loan by the government. But the interest rates are typically much lower than they would command in the free market. The government should either charge a high interest rate to compensate for that risk, or inject money into these companies through equity investments that could be put in a blind trust. At least in this scenario, the bailout is seen through the lens of a prudent investment. It's also pricing in the risks of investing in these companies since we never know what will happen to them in the future. If they don't want it, they can find someone else to give them money or go bankrupt. It's not like these companies will just disappear, there will be a buyer somewhere out there.   No one is ENTITLED to a low interest loan from the government, especially these mega corporations who barely pay above minimum wage for their lowest employees while constantly upping the C-suite's compensation. By handing out bailouts that actually reflect the risk for these companies, we can actually punish the C-Suite and investors who squeezed every bit of profit out of the company during good times since these deals will negatively affect the stock price. The bailouts in its current form reward the CEOs and investors who already cashed out in the past couple of years pushing for buybacks and increased dividends.","c_root_id_A":"fqyk6bh","c_root_id_B":"fqyiucl","created_at_utc_A":1589749911,"created_at_utc_B":1589749284,"score_A":33,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The Covid bailouts are not because these are poorly run companies. It\u2019s because a global pandemic has required the government to order businesses to shutdown for national health.   It\u2019s a liquidity crisis, not a bunch of zombie companies.  The businesses hit hardest are not the worst run. They are the ones that require face to face interaction, and frankly employ the majority of the us workforce.  Greater good problems are a big part of the reason we have government. We pay taxes so the government can step in and solve problems like this.  If you want my business shut down for the greater good, okay, but help me not lose everything in the meantime. Otherwise you create bad incentives where people won\u2019t close they\u2019re business.  And expecting companies to hold cash for a once in a lifetime event is a super inefficient use of that cash, which could otherwise go to new innovations.  (And I know people harp on the buybacks, but buy backs don\u2019t mean that money isn\u2019t used for innovation. Buybacks are companies returning money to shareholders. What do those shareholders do with the cash? They tend to invest it, often in new businesses who have uses for the cash to innovate.)","human_ref_B":"> Sure no one could have foreseen the current environment, but nearly every economist was predicting a recession within the next few years. They should have prepared for some type of downturn.   Is your position that for a company to be responsible, it has to be prepared for a situation where revenue collapses entirely for several months? This is very different from recessions of the past, which occur over a longer period of time, allowing companies to scale down expenses as the recession unfolds. For many companies, this was basically an overnight elimination of nearly all of their revenue for an indefinite period of time. I don't think it's reasonable to expect any company to be prepared for that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":627.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"pq2cmn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: Being in the military doesn't make you a hero. It make you a strong-arm enforcer of corporate interests  I am a military veteran. I served during the Vietnam war. I see nothing  heroic in military service. I see mostly kids from disadvantaged  socio-economic backgrounds joining the military to escape their dead end  lives. And the military offers that, there is no doubt. I served and  I'm glad I did. The service helped me out of poverty, but I had no  illusions about who and what I was serving. We haven't been involved in  an existential war since the 1940s. All of our actions after that, and  most of them before, have been to protect and promote the American  corporate hegemony. We want docile trading partners, that's it. If you  are in the military your only job is to keep the spice flowing. You  don't protect Americans. You protect American business interests abroad.","c_root_id_A":"hd82sxa","c_root_id_B":"hd8g9dn","created_at_utc_A":1631895976,"created_at_utc_B":1631901612,"score_A":113,"score_B":460,"human_ref_A":">We haven't been involved in an existential war since the 1940s.  The United States has **never** been involved in an \"existential\" war.   Not being \"existential\" does not automatically make a conflict \"in corporate interests.\" Fighting existential threats is also not mutually exclusive with defending corporate interests. Fighting existential threats is literally a corporate interest.   >All of our actions after that, and most of them before, have been to protect and promote the American corporate hegemony  Which corporation did you fight for in Vietnam?  >We want docile trading partners, that's it. If you are in the military your only job is to keep the spice flowing.  For the *country*, not any corporation. You aren't keeping the spice flowing to prop up any particular company. American companies rise and fall all of the time.   >You don't protect Americans. You protect American business interests abroad.  Not mutually exclusive. Anyways, what were the business interests in Iraq and Afghanistan? Kosovo? Syria?","human_ref_B":"I guess it's a question of intentions versus result. Imagine you see a child screaming from the window of a burning building and attempt to run in and save them, but it turns out you had unknowingly ran onto a film set with a controlled fire and firefighters on the premises and were never actually in danger. The film was rolling and they caught what you thought was your real attempt to save this child and used it in their viral marketing for the film. Are you not a hero, despite your purest intentions and selfless act, because it all turned out to not be real?   You may have had no illusions of what you were getting into when you joined the military. That doesn't mean that everybody who joins sees it as clearly as you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5636.0,"score_ratio":4.0707964602}
+{"post_id":"pq2cmn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: Being in the military doesn't make you a hero. It make you a strong-arm enforcer of corporate interests  I am a military veteran. I served during the Vietnam war. I see nothing  heroic in military service. I see mostly kids from disadvantaged  socio-economic backgrounds joining the military to escape their dead end  lives. And the military offers that, there is no doubt. I served and  I'm glad I did. The service helped me out of poverty, but I had no  illusions about who and what I was serving. We haven't been involved in  an existential war since the 1940s. All of our actions after that, and  most of them before, have been to protect and promote the American  corporate hegemony. We want docile trading partners, that's it. If you  are in the military your only job is to keep the spice flowing. You  don't protect Americans. You protect American business interests abroad.","c_root_id_A":"hd8g9dn","c_root_id_B":"hd82zjw","created_at_utc_A":1631901612,"created_at_utc_B":1631896051,"score_A":460,"score_B":40,"human_ref_A":"I guess it's a question of intentions versus result. Imagine you see a child screaming from the window of a burning building and attempt to run in and save them, but it turns out you had unknowingly ran onto a film set with a controlled fire and firefighters on the premises and were never actually in danger. The film was rolling and they caught what you thought was your real attempt to save this child and used it in their viral marketing for the film. Are you not a hero, despite your purest intentions and selfless act, because it all turned out to not be real?   You may have had no illusions of what you were getting into when you joined the military. That doesn't mean that everybody who joins sees it as clearly as you.","human_ref_B":"The military doesn\u2019t have to act to serve a purpose. Its mere existence deters violence from other nations.   If you don\u2019t believe me, let\u2019s shut down the military completely and see how long it takes North Korea to bomb the US","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5561.0,"score_ratio":11.5}
+{"post_id":"pq2cmn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: Being in the military doesn't make you a hero. It make you a strong-arm enforcer of corporate interests  I am a military veteran. I served during the Vietnam war. I see nothing  heroic in military service. I see mostly kids from disadvantaged  socio-economic backgrounds joining the military to escape their dead end  lives. And the military offers that, there is no doubt. I served and  I'm glad I did. The service helped me out of poverty, but I had no  illusions about who and what I was serving. We haven't been involved in  an existential war since the 1940s. All of our actions after that, and  most of them before, have been to protect and promote the American  corporate hegemony. We want docile trading partners, that's it. If you  are in the military your only job is to keep the spice flowing. You  don't protect Americans. You protect American business interests abroad.","c_root_id_A":"hd8bvtz","c_root_id_B":"hd8g9dn","created_at_utc_A":1631899773,"created_at_utc_B":1631901612,"score_A":16,"score_B":460,"human_ref_A":"What about Korea?  Because of the war we fought there 52 million people don't have to live in shithole North Korea.  We went there to fight the communists, why we fought them isn't really that important especially since there wasn't just a single reason.  I think Korean war vets are heroes, they risked their lives to fight North Korea to a stalemate.  Given what a shithole North Korea became, and how little the war itself had to do with it's sharp decline into shithollery, I think those men deserve some credit.","human_ref_B":"I guess it's a question of intentions versus result. Imagine you see a child screaming from the window of a burning building and attempt to run in and save them, but it turns out you had unknowingly ran onto a film set with a controlled fire and firefighters on the premises and were never actually in danger. The film was rolling and they caught what you thought was your real attempt to save this child and used it in their viral marketing for the film. Are you not a hero, despite your purest intentions and selfless act, because it all turned out to not be real?   You may have had no illusions of what you were getting into when you joined the military. That doesn't mean that everybody who joins sees it as clearly as you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1839.0,"score_ratio":28.75}
+{"post_id":"pq2cmn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: Being in the military doesn't make you a hero. It make you a strong-arm enforcer of corporate interests  I am a military veteran. I served during the Vietnam war. I see nothing  heroic in military service. I see mostly kids from disadvantaged  socio-economic backgrounds joining the military to escape their dead end  lives. And the military offers that, there is no doubt. I served and  I'm glad I did. The service helped me out of poverty, but I had no  illusions about who and what I was serving. We haven't been involved in  an existential war since the 1940s. All of our actions after that, and  most of them before, have been to protect and promote the American  corporate hegemony. We want docile trading partners, that's it. If you  are in the military your only job is to keep the spice flowing. You  don't protect Americans. You protect American business interests abroad.","c_root_id_A":"hd82zjw","c_root_id_B":"hd8gfu5","created_at_utc_A":1631896051,"created_at_utc_B":1631901688,"score_A":40,"score_B":98,"human_ref_A":"The military doesn\u2019t have to act to serve a purpose. Its mere existence deters violence from other nations.   If you don\u2019t believe me, let\u2019s shut down the military completely and see how long it takes North Korea to bomb the US","human_ref_B":"I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but only to a certain extent. The oligarchy is real and a huge problem, but one that\u2019s a problem for the entire world. I also think it isn\u2019t a monolith and the oligarchy isn\u2019t homogeneous across the whole planet.  To counter your point of view, I\u2019d highlight the fact while US hegemony has brought forth evil and some destruction, it\u2019s also brought forth a period of significantly reduced global conflict. It\u2019s allowed for the global proliferation of technology and increased access to the sun of all human knowledge through the internet and such. The US is an Empire and even though it\u2019s an imperfect one, I believe the US and the West would look very, very different if it weren\u2019t for the US maintaining a certain level of stability.  People seem to significantly undervalue our global military presence and capability of the US military. Not just presence, but ability to deploy and project force in very short order. It\u2019s relatively unseen in human history.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5637.0,"score_ratio":2.45}
+{"post_id":"pq2cmn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: Being in the military doesn't make you a hero. It make you a strong-arm enforcer of corporate interests  I am a military veteran. I served during the Vietnam war. I see nothing  heroic in military service. I see mostly kids from disadvantaged  socio-economic backgrounds joining the military to escape their dead end  lives. And the military offers that, there is no doubt. I served and  I'm glad I did. The service helped me out of poverty, but I had no  illusions about who and what I was serving. We haven't been involved in  an existential war since the 1940s. All of our actions after that, and  most of them before, have been to protect and promote the American  corporate hegemony. We want docile trading partners, that's it. If you  are in the military your only job is to keep the spice flowing. You  don't protect Americans. You protect American business interests abroad.","c_root_id_A":"hd8gfu5","c_root_id_B":"hd8bvtz","created_at_utc_A":1631901688,"created_at_utc_B":1631899773,"score_A":98,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but only to a certain extent. The oligarchy is real and a huge problem, but one that\u2019s a problem for the entire world. I also think it isn\u2019t a monolith and the oligarchy isn\u2019t homogeneous across the whole planet.  To counter your point of view, I\u2019d highlight the fact while US hegemony has brought forth evil and some destruction, it\u2019s also brought forth a period of significantly reduced global conflict. It\u2019s allowed for the global proliferation of technology and increased access to the sun of all human knowledge through the internet and such. The US is an Empire and even though it\u2019s an imperfect one, I believe the US and the West would look very, very different if it weren\u2019t for the US maintaining a certain level of stability.  People seem to significantly undervalue our global military presence and capability of the US military. Not just presence, but ability to deploy and project force in very short order. It\u2019s relatively unseen in human history.","human_ref_B":"What about Korea?  Because of the war we fought there 52 million people don't have to live in shithole North Korea.  We went there to fight the communists, why we fought them isn't really that important especially since there wasn't just a single reason.  I think Korean war vets are heroes, they risked their lives to fight North Korea to a stalemate.  Given what a shithole North Korea became, and how little the war itself had to do with it's sharp decline into shithollery, I think those men deserve some credit.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1915.0,"score_ratio":6.125}
+{"post_id":"pq2cmn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: Being in the military doesn't make you a hero. It make you a strong-arm enforcer of corporate interests  I am a military veteran. I served during the Vietnam war. I see nothing  heroic in military service. I see mostly kids from disadvantaged  socio-economic backgrounds joining the military to escape their dead end  lives. And the military offers that, there is no doubt. I served and  I'm glad I did. The service helped me out of poverty, but I had no  illusions about who and what I was serving. We haven't been involved in  an existential war since the 1940s. All of our actions after that, and  most of them before, have been to protect and promote the American  corporate hegemony. We want docile trading partners, that's it. If you  are in the military your only job is to keep the spice flowing. You  don't protect Americans. You protect American business interests abroad.","c_root_id_A":"hd8bvtz","c_root_id_B":"hd8sq5b","created_at_utc_A":1631899773,"created_at_utc_B":1631906947,"score_A":16,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"What about Korea?  Because of the war we fought there 52 million people don't have to live in shithole North Korea.  We went there to fight the communists, why we fought them isn't really that important especially since there wasn't just a single reason.  I think Korean war vets are heroes, they risked their lives to fight North Korea to a stalemate.  Given what a shithole North Korea became, and how little the war itself had to do with it's sharp decline into shithollery, I think those men deserve some credit.","human_ref_B":"Honestly? You're both wrong. How do I know this? This:   > We want docile trading partners, that's it.   is as much a fundamental misunderstanding of US foreign policy as thinking we're the ultimate heroes. We don't want anyone docile, we just don't want them to be conniving douche-canoes. I mean if we wanted docile partners then Japan wouldn't have any say in where we want to build bases and the French would just go along with everything we say instead of complaining every five seconds and acting like they're still an empire.   The truth is somewhere in the middle. They're both heroes in their own right ***and*** they do protect business interests. One does not make the other false, this is not a zero sum game. A person can die heroically defending an oil rig that will not only benefit a corporation but the nation they're serving as a whole. They protect Americans by protecting our interests as well. That's just a catch all phrase for anything that isn't a direct action to save lives. After all, ***everyone*** loses if a city is destroyed.   >All of our actions after that, and  most of them before, have been to protect and promote the American  corporate hegemony  We've tried the exact opposite of what you believe we have. It only turned out worse for not only us but the world. It's personally very annoying to me when Redditors have the balls to tell us we are the world's police because god I wish we were. Then we could have stopped the multiple world wars, since WWI and WWII were not the first world spanning wars, that we keep getting dragged in to. Especially between you France, Britain, and Germany. Being non-aligned and isolationist is not something that works in any place other than in imaginations. So here we are. Having to deal with a world so violent and hypocritical that we can't be neutral and we can't stop others from killing each other because of things so stupid like a prince pissing on the wrong patch of land 2,000 years ago.   So really, believe what you want. It doesn't change the nature of the beast. A beast that doesn't fit in to the cage of corporate hegemony, nationalism, globalism, or every other fancy term a suit in an air conditioned room tells you explains the world.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7174.0,"score_ratio":2.125}
+{"post_id":"pq2cmn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: Being in the military doesn't make you a hero. It make you a strong-arm enforcer of corporate interests  I am a military veteran. I served during the Vietnam war. I see nothing  heroic in military service. I see mostly kids from disadvantaged  socio-economic backgrounds joining the military to escape their dead end  lives. And the military offers that, there is no doubt. I served and  I'm glad I did. The service helped me out of poverty, but I had no  illusions about who and what I was serving. We haven't been involved in  an existential war since the 1940s. All of our actions after that, and  most of them before, have been to protect and promote the American  corporate hegemony. We want docile trading partners, that's it. If you  are in the military your only job is to keep the spice flowing. You  don't protect Americans. You protect American business interests abroad.","c_root_id_A":"hd8py6l","c_root_id_B":"hd8sq5b","created_at_utc_A":1631905758,"created_at_utc_B":1631906947,"score_A":12,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":">You don't protect Americans. You protect American business interests abroad.   People are always saying things like this, as if it\u2019s businesses vs Americans. you do realize that if businesses suffer, everyone suffers right?  Businesses are intrinsically linked to how well off everyone is. Just look at 2008 for an example, businesses fails and leaves particularly the middle and lower classes worse off. At other periods, businesses have done quite well and most people are much better off because there is more money to go around.   So the military may not actually be actively directly protecting Americans, but they are definitely indirectly protecting them, (as well as passively but others have already addressed that).","human_ref_B":"Honestly? You're both wrong. How do I know this? This:   > We want docile trading partners, that's it.   is as much a fundamental misunderstanding of US foreign policy as thinking we're the ultimate heroes. We don't want anyone docile, we just don't want them to be conniving douche-canoes. I mean if we wanted docile partners then Japan wouldn't have any say in where we want to build bases and the French would just go along with everything we say instead of complaining every five seconds and acting like they're still an empire.   The truth is somewhere in the middle. They're both heroes in their own right ***and*** they do protect business interests. One does not make the other false, this is not a zero sum game. A person can die heroically defending an oil rig that will not only benefit a corporation but the nation they're serving as a whole. They protect Americans by protecting our interests as well. That's just a catch all phrase for anything that isn't a direct action to save lives. After all, ***everyone*** loses if a city is destroyed.   >All of our actions after that, and  most of them before, have been to protect and promote the American  corporate hegemony  We've tried the exact opposite of what you believe we have. It only turned out worse for not only us but the world. It's personally very annoying to me when Redditors have the balls to tell us we are the world's police because god I wish we were. Then we could have stopped the multiple world wars, since WWI and WWII were not the first world spanning wars, that we keep getting dragged in to. Especially between you France, Britain, and Germany. Being non-aligned and isolationist is not something that works in any place other than in imaginations. So here we are. Having to deal with a world so violent and hypocritical that we can't be neutral and we can't stop others from killing each other because of things so stupid like a prince pissing on the wrong patch of land 2,000 years ago.   So really, believe what you want. It doesn't change the nature of the beast. A beast that doesn't fit in to the cage of corporate hegemony, nationalism, globalism, or every other fancy term a suit in an air conditioned room tells you explains the world.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1189.0,"score_ratio":2.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1lckzf","c_root_id_B":"g1m933u","created_at_utc_A":1597500816,"created_at_utc_B":1597511094,"score_A":29,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"Question: how are term limits democratic if the Senator is doing an excellent job and the voters want to keep voting them into the position? I'm not saying this is the case currently, but you stated that it is important for a democracy. Principally, why are term limits democratic?","human_ref_B":"\"Research shows that legislative term limits increase legislative polarization, reduce the legislative skills of politicians, reduce the legislative productivity of politicians, weaken legislatures vis-a-vis the executive, and reduce voter turnout.\"  Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Term_limits_in_the_United_States  I used to think the same thing but I think my opinion has changed after looking into some of the research.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10278.0,"score_ratio":1.2413793103}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1m933u","c_root_id_B":"g1lofae","created_at_utc_A":1597511094,"created_at_utc_B":1597504696,"score_A":36,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"\"Research shows that legislative term limits increase legislative polarization, reduce the legislative skills of politicians, reduce the legislative productivity of politicians, weaken legislatures vis-a-vis the executive, and reduce voter turnout.\"  Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Term_limits_in_the_United_States  I used to think the same thing but I think my opinion has changed after looking into some of the research.","human_ref_B":"Some have already pointed out the anti-democratic nature of term limits.  The purpose of a democracy is to let the people choose who leads them.  Term limits is just a way of saying, \"We don't trust the voters to make good decisions, so we're going to make some for them.\"  But lets go further.  >The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy.  Why do you think it's important?  Term limits for President is a very new thing in the country, and prior to the 25th amendment, only one president in our history served more than two terms.  That was FDR, widely considered one of the best presidents we had.  He helped us get through the great depression without letting the country turn to fascism or communism, then led us through WW2. The people wanted FDR's steady leadership through a crisis.  >One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table.  Not necessarily, career politicians with deep networks don't go away because we impose term limits.  It becomes more of a game of musical chairs.  Governors switch to Senators, Senators switch to the House, then maybe a job sitting on the board of a major corporation where they use their previous contacts to pull strings.  There's no guarantee that people will choose candidates more to your liking.   If anything things will get less transparent as there will be lots of behind the scenes power brokers moving candidates around like chess pieces.    New ideas are not necessarily good ideas.  Trickle down economics was a new idea in the late 70s.  It was a bad idea, and the idea wont go away.  Fascism was a new idea in the 20s, it was a bad idea and despite a world war, it wont go away.  New ideas are possible, even with older statesmen.  They have staffs, they listen to people, they adopt new philosophies as they learn.  New candidates don't always bring new ideas, seems most the new candidates now a days are just regurgitating the same ol, because the same ol is a tried and true path to eleciton.  >Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.  Not in any place it's been tried.  Lobbyist influence goes up, not down. Politicians always have to be worried about their next job.  They're going to need that corporate cash to run for new offices one their term is up in whatever their current office even more, because they wont have the power of incumbency and a track record of success in that office to count on.  >I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.  I'll throw one more out then.  Politicians will focus less on doing a good job in their office (which of course is one of the best ways to get reelected) and more on taking actions to line themselves up for their next office.  We already have that to an extent, with many politicians looking to trade up to their next position, but it would get worse if all of them were doing it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6398.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1m933u","c_root_id_B":"g1lftp1","created_at_utc_A":1597511094,"created_at_utc_B":1597502014,"score_A":36,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"\"Research shows that legislative term limits increase legislative polarization, reduce the legislative skills of politicians, reduce the legislative productivity of politicians, weaken legislatures vis-a-vis the executive, and reduce voter turnout.\"  Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Term_limits_in_the_United_States  I used to think the same thing but I think my opinion has changed after looking into some of the research.","human_ref_B":"> Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   What about a Senator in his last term in office. If he isn't eyeing another job like President, he doesn't really have any reason to work towards the interest of his people. Unpopular senators in their last terms would probably be the most corrupt, they could sell out to huge corporations in promise of a high earning position after they leave office.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9080.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1m6f13","c_root_id_B":"g1m933u","created_at_utc_A":1597510370,"created_at_utc_B":1597511094,"score_A":3,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"I can. We shouldn\u2019t have term limits for the senate because there shouldn\u2019t be a senate.  The senate is a wretched institution, spitting in the eye of democracy at every turn. It has become a graveyard for progressivism and a temple to obstructionism. Those who sit in the seats of the senate are not representatives, but trustees. Not those meant to support the people and better the country but to represent their elitist friends and keep the status quo. The senate is quite honestly the worst thing about our government. Abolish the senate.","human_ref_B":"\"Research shows that legislative term limits increase legislative polarization, reduce the legislative skills of politicians, reduce the legislative productivity of politicians, weaken legislatures vis-a-vis the executive, and reduce voter turnout.\"  Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Term_limits_in_the_United_States  I used to think the same thing but I think my opinion has changed after looking into some of the research.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":724.0,"score_ratio":12.0}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1m933u","c_root_id_B":"g1m8nkq","created_at_utc_A":1597511094,"created_at_utc_B":1597510975,"score_A":36,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"\"Research shows that legislative term limits increase legislative polarization, reduce the legislative skills of politicians, reduce the legislative productivity of politicians, weaken legislatures vis-a-vis the executive, and reduce voter turnout.\"  Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Term_limits_in_the_United_States  I used to think the same thing but I think my opinion has changed after looking into some of the research.","human_ref_B":"you know In Canada we don't have term limits on the prime minister or to my knowledge ,parliament seats and we manage to have some of the lowest corruption rates in the world.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":119.0,"score_ratio":18.0}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1lofae","c_root_id_B":"g1mrbrf","created_at_utc_A":1597504696,"created_at_utc_B":1597516402,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Some have already pointed out the anti-democratic nature of term limits.  The purpose of a democracy is to let the people choose who leads them.  Term limits is just a way of saying, \"We don't trust the voters to make good decisions, so we're going to make some for them.\"  But lets go further.  >The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy.  Why do you think it's important?  Term limits for President is a very new thing in the country, and prior to the 25th amendment, only one president in our history served more than two terms.  That was FDR, widely considered one of the best presidents we had.  He helped us get through the great depression without letting the country turn to fascism or communism, then led us through WW2. The people wanted FDR's steady leadership through a crisis.  >One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table.  Not necessarily, career politicians with deep networks don't go away because we impose term limits.  It becomes more of a game of musical chairs.  Governors switch to Senators, Senators switch to the House, then maybe a job sitting on the board of a major corporation where they use their previous contacts to pull strings.  There's no guarantee that people will choose candidates more to your liking.   If anything things will get less transparent as there will be lots of behind the scenes power brokers moving candidates around like chess pieces.    New ideas are not necessarily good ideas.  Trickle down economics was a new idea in the late 70s.  It was a bad idea, and the idea wont go away.  Fascism was a new idea in the 20s, it was a bad idea and despite a world war, it wont go away.  New ideas are possible, even with older statesmen.  They have staffs, they listen to people, they adopt new philosophies as they learn.  New candidates don't always bring new ideas, seems most the new candidates now a days are just regurgitating the same ol, because the same ol is a tried and true path to eleciton.  >Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.  Not in any place it's been tried.  Lobbyist influence goes up, not down. Politicians always have to be worried about their next job.  They're going to need that corporate cash to run for new offices one their term is up in whatever their current office even more, because they wont have the power of incumbency and a track record of success in that office to count on.  >I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.  I'll throw one more out then.  Politicians will focus less on doing a good job in their office (which of course is one of the best ways to get reelected) and more on taking actions to line themselves up for their next office.  We already have that to an extent, with many politicians looking to trade up to their next position, but it would get worse if all of them were doing it.","human_ref_B":"One thing I'd like to add is that term limits would *increase* the motivation to be corrupt. If you have an election coming up, at least one of your concerns is making laws that are popular. But if you're in your last term and only in your 50s, why not propose a law that's unpopular but will set you up in the industry you'll be returning to? Maybe you're a former banker who will be returning to the banking world, so you may as well vote for a law that lowers a capital gains tax that's about to be very relevant to your personal finances.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11706.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1lftp1","c_root_id_B":"g1lofae","created_at_utc_A":1597502014,"created_at_utc_B":1597504696,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   What about a Senator in his last term in office. If he isn't eyeing another job like President, he doesn't really have any reason to work towards the interest of his people. Unpopular senators in their last terms would probably be the most corrupt, they could sell out to huge corporations in promise of a high earning position after they leave office.","human_ref_B":"Some have already pointed out the anti-democratic nature of term limits.  The purpose of a democracy is to let the people choose who leads them.  Term limits is just a way of saying, \"We don't trust the voters to make good decisions, so we're going to make some for them.\"  But lets go further.  >The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy.  Why do you think it's important?  Term limits for President is a very new thing in the country, and prior to the 25th amendment, only one president in our history served more than two terms.  That was FDR, widely considered one of the best presidents we had.  He helped us get through the great depression without letting the country turn to fascism or communism, then led us through WW2. The people wanted FDR's steady leadership through a crisis.  >One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table.  Not necessarily, career politicians with deep networks don't go away because we impose term limits.  It becomes more of a game of musical chairs.  Governors switch to Senators, Senators switch to the House, then maybe a job sitting on the board of a major corporation where they use their previous contacts to pull strings.  There's no guarantee that people will choose candidates more to your liking.   If anything things will get less transparent as there will be lots of behind the scenes power brokers moving candidates around like chess pieces.    New ideas are not necessarily good ideas.  Trickle down economics was a new idea in the late 70s.  It was a bad idea, and the idea wont go away.  Fascism was a new idea in the 20s, it was a bad idea and despite a world war, it wont go away.  New ideas are possible, even with older statesmen.  They have staffs, they listen to people, they adopt new philosophies as they learn.  New candidates don't always bring new ideas, seems most the new candidates now a days are just regurgitating the same ol, because the same ol is a tried and true path to eleciton.  >Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.  Not in any place it's been tried.  Lobbyist influence goes up, not down. Politicians always have to be worried about their next job.  They're going to need that corporate cash to run for new offices one their term is up in whatever their current office even more, because they wont have the power of incumbency and a track record of success in that office to count on.  >I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.  I'll throw one more out then.  Politicians will focus less on doing a good job in their office (which of course is one of the best ways to get reelected) and more on taking actions to line themselves up for their next office.  We already have that to an extent, with many politicians looking to trade up to their next position, but it would get worse if all of them were doing it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2682.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1lftp1","c_root_id_B":"g1mrbrf","created_at_utc_A":1597502014,"created_at_utc_B":1597516402,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   What about a Senator in his last term in office. If he isn't eyeing another job like President, he doesn't really have any reason to work towards the interest of his people. Unpopular senators in their last terms would probably be the most corrupt, they could sell out to huge corporations in promise of a high earning position after they leave office.","human_ref_B":"One thing I'd like to add is that term limits would *increase* the motivation to be corrupt. If you have an election coming up, at least one of your concerns is making laws that are popular. But if you're in your last term and only in your 50s, why not propose a law that's unpopular but will set you up in the industry you'll be returning to? Maybe you're a former banker who will be returning to the banking world, so you may as well vote for a law that lowers a capital gains tax that's about to be very relevant to your personal finances.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14388.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1mrbrf","c_root_id_B":"g1m6f13","created_at_utc_A":1597516402,"created_at_utc_B":1597510370,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"One thing I'd like to add is that term limits would *increase* the motivation to be corrupt. If you have an election coming up, at least one of your concerns is making laws that are popular. But if you're in your last term and only in your 50s, why not propose a law that's unpopular but will set you up in the industry you'll be returning to? Maybe you're a former banker who will be returning to the banking world, so you may as well vote for a law that lowers a capital gains tax that's about to be very relevant to your personal finances.","human_ref_B":"I can. We shouldn\u2019t have term limits for the senate because there shouldn\u2019t be a senate.  The senate is a wretched institution, spitting in the eye of democracy at every turn. It has become a graveyard for progressivism and a temple to obstructionism. Those who sit in the seats of the senate are not representatives, but trustees. Not those meant to support the people and better the country but to represent their elitist friends and keep the status quo. The senate is quite honestly the worst thing about our government. Abolish the senate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6032.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1mrbrf","c_root_id_B":"g1mfu9y","created_at_utc_A":1597516402,"created_at_utc_B":1597512932,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"One thing I'd like to add is that term limits would *increase* the motivation to be corrupt. If you have an election coming up, at least one of your concerns is making laws that are popular. But if you're in your last term and only in your 50s, why not propose a law that's unpopular but will set you up in the industry you'll be returning to? Maybe you're a former banker who will be returning to the banking world, so you may as well vote for a law that lowers a capital gains tax that's about to be very relevant to your personal finances.","human_ref_B":"At least in my State  (Missouri)  term limits have just increased the influence of lobbyists, started a revolving door to lobbying firms and thrown out good office holders. New and inexperienced does not result in better government. We always had term limits before those changes. When office holders were no longer effective or successful at representing our interests they got voted out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3470.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1mrbrf","c_root_id_B":"g1m8nkq","created_at_utc_A":1597516402,"created_at_utc_B":1597510975,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"One thing I'd like to add is that term limits would *increase* the motivation to be corrupt. If you have an election coming up, at least one of your concerns is making laws that are popular. But if you're in your last term and only in your 50s, why not propose a law that's unpopular but will set you up in the industry you'll be returning to? Maybe you're a former banker who will be returning to the banking world, so you may as well vote for a law that lowers a capital gains tax that's about to be very relevant to your personal finances.","human_ref_B":"you know In Canada we don't have term limits on the prime minister or to my knowledge ,parliament seats and we manage to have some of the lowest corruption rates in the world.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5427.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1mfu9y","c_root_id_B":"g1m8nkq","created_at_utc_A":1597512932,"created_at_utc_B":1597510975,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"At least in my State  (Missouri)  term limits have just increased the influence of lobbyists, started a revolving door to lobbying firms and thrown out good office holders. New and inexperienced does not result in better government. We always had term limits before those changes. When office holders were no longer effective or successful at representing our interests they got voted out.","human_ref_B":"you know In Canada we don't have term limits on the prime minister or to my knowledge ,parliament seats and we manage to have some of the lowest corruption rates in the world.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1957.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"ia7qaw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: There NEEDS to be a term limit for US senate positions I have no idea why this isn't a thing already. The president already has a two term limit and I believe it's an incredibly important thing to have for a democracy. But for some reason, we don't give limits to the senate. Enforcing a term limit would do two things.   One, it would make the senate full of younger people who understand the current times more and have new and interesting ideas to bring to the table. Two, it would combat corruption by not allowing a singular politician to stay in office for years and years while they accept big donations from corporations.   I can't think of a single reason why we wouldn't want this to be implemented.","c_root_id_A":"g1m8nkq","c_root_id_B":"g1njvsm","created_at_utc_A":1597510975,"created_at_utc_B":1597525482,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"you know In Canada we don't have term limits on the prime minister or to my knowledge ,parliament seats and we manage to have some of the lowest corruption rates in the world.","human_ref_B":"I think u\/larrytheevilbunny did a good job of explaining it in another post.  \"Political scientists really hate term limits:, this article gives a lot of reasons why with links to a LOT studies https:\/\/www.mischiefsoffaction.com\/post\/political-science-term-limits.  A lot of local governments established term limits sinces the 20th century, with that data, scientists were able to see their effect, and their effects havent been good.  Essentially, term limits:  1. increase legislative polarization 2. decrease the legislators' expertise and law-making capacity, which leads to a greater reliance on lobbyists and less effective legislators 3. decrease the power of the legislature relative to the executive 4. reduce voter turnout  All while not reducing campaign spending, increasing the diversity of the people serving in office, nor even decreasing the average length of time served in office.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14507.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmms0q","c_root_id_B":"gbmjlsl","created_at_utc_A":1604855942,"created_at_utc_B":1604854381,"score_A":1298,"score_B":123,"human_ref_A":"Words themselves are inherently neutral. It is the people who (using a basic communication model) code and send the word and the people who receive and decode the word who give it's intended meaning and understood meaning. It maybe important to note here that the meaning of the sender is not always accurately received by the recipient. When talking about offense, we're talking about the coding and decoding of the word in its context. If the N word was used in a paper describing it's etymology, historical use, and how it evolved to it's current meaning and use there are very few who would find it offensive. If the N word was yelled at a group of black people with intent to cause emotional harm and devalue them as humans and people there are many more who would find that offensive. The word is the same. The coding, the transmission, and the received message differ and that will affect the level of offense. It's the people who involved in the communication who determine the offense, not the word. Nothing is universally offensive except the intent to cause some sort of harm to others.","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure I agree. Some words and word usages can fall out of the language entirely.  For example, one of the reasons \"fag\" and \"faggot\" is so nasty is because not only does it imply the other person is homosexual, but that being homosexual is inferior and an awful thing.  So it's not just offensive because it is an insult, but rather because it is a whole package of bigotry on top of the insult. By saying it, you're not only being insulting, you're also getting a double whammy of aggressively implying gay people are nasty and you're not gay, throwing your bigotry out there.  I don't think trying to reclaim the word will do anybody any favors, except reintroduce a whole flavor of bigotry back into popular culture..","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1561.0,"score_ratio":10.5528455285}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmms0q","c_root_id_B":"gbmh5b9","created_at_utc_A":1604855942,"created_at_utc_B":1604853046,"score_A":1298,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"Words themselves are inherently neutral. It is the people who (using a basic communication model) code and send the word and the people who receive and decode the word who give it's intended meaning and understood meaning. It maybe important to note here that the meaning of the sender is not always accurately received by the recipient. When talking about offense, we're talking about the coding and decoding of the word in its context. If the N word was used in a paper describing it's etymology, historical use, and how it evolved to it's current meaning and use there are very few who would find it offensive. If the N word was yelled at a group of black people with intent to cause emotional harm and devalue them as humans and people there are many more who would find that offensive. The word is the same. The coding, the transmission, and the received message differ and that will affect the level of offense. It's the people who involved in the communication who determine the offense, not the word. Nothing is universally offensive except the intent to cause some sort of harm to others.","human_ref_B":"I mean... yeah, sometimes reclaiming a word helps. And I agree that you should try to take away power over you from bullies.   That being said, it is not that easy, and we as a society should be promoting civil discourse and discourage insensitive behavior and harassment.   Also, the onus shouldn't be on the victims of harassment to desensitize themselves. I was heavily bullied for 15 years growing up. Insulted, denigrated, called names from fat to smelly to loser, nerd, etc. I have since made great strides to regain my self esteem and to view that era with perspective. That being said, there are still things that trigger a kind of regression for me, that bring my insecurities out.   Now, I can only imagine how that kind of 'ptsd' \/ regression must be like for people suffering from racist or bigoted aggressions, big and small, their whole lives. I dont think it is unreasonable for me to ask people to be kind and to ve sensitive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2896.0,"score_ratio":29.5}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmms0q","c_root_id_B":"gbme06u","created_at_utc_A":1604855942,"created_at_utc_B":1604851312,"score_A":1298,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"Words themselves are inherently neutral. It is the people who (using a basic communication model) code and send the word and the people who receive and decode the word who give it's intended meaning and understood meaning. It maybe important to note here that the meaning of the sender is not always accurately received by the recipient. When talking about offense, we're talking about the coding and decoding of the word in its context. If the N word was used in a paper describing it's etymology, historical use, and how it evolved to it's current meaning and use there are very few who would find it offensive. If the N word was yelled at a group of black people with intent to cause emotional harm and devalue them as humans and people there are many more who would find that offensive. The word is the same. The coding, the transmission, and the received message differ and that will affect the level of offense. It's the people who involved in the communication who determine the offense, not the word. Nothing is universally offensive except the intent to cause some sort of harm to others.","human_ref_B":"Shouldn't that be up to the personal judgement of the people who are the subject of the insult?  If there's some kind of word insulting a group that I am a part of, it might help me feel better if the word is reclaimed and robbed of its offensive potential. On the other hand, trying to do so might not actually make me feel better, it might just continue to be upsetting.  So I'd say it's fair for people who are subjected to an insult to discuss for themselves what they think about that, but it's not up to outsiders to make that decision, since they lack the ability to understand how any specific given insult actually feels when it's thrown at you.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4630.0,"score_ratio":31.6585365854}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmms0q","c_root_id_B":"gbmksuf","created_at_utc_A":1604855942,"created_at_utc_B":1604855024,"score_A":1298,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Words themselves are inherently neutral. It is the people who (using a basic communication model) code and send the word and the people who receive and decode the word who give it's intended meaning and understood meaning. It maybe important to note here that the meaning of the sender is not always accurately received by the recipient. When talking about offense, we're talking about the coding and decoding of the word in its context. If the N word was used in a paper describing it's etymology, historical use, and how it evolved to it's current meaning and use there are very few who would find it offensive. If the N word was yelled at a group of black people with intent to cause emotional harm and devalue them as humans and people there are many more who would find that offensive. The word is the same. The coding, the transmission, and the received message differ and that will affect the level of offense. It's the people who involved in the communication who determine the offense, not the word. Nothing is universally offensive except the intent to cause some sort of harm to others.","human_ref_B":"Depends on what you mean by 'forbidding'.  If it comes to legal recourse, I absolutely agree.  However, if you're talking about more informal 'social' forbidding, I disagree. I think it's fine for stores to ask people to leave if they're swearing a lot. I also think it's fine for people on an individual level to ask others not to use certain words around them - their choice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":918.0,"score_ratio":99.8461538462}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmms0q","c_root_id_B":"gbmf2x6","created_at_utc_A":1604855942,"created_at_utc_B":1604851915,"score_A":1298,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Words themselves are inherently neutral. It is the people who (using a basic communication model) code and send the word and the people who receive and decode the word who give it's intended meaning and understood meaning. It maybe important to note here that the meaning of the sender is not always accurately received by the recipient. When talking about offense, we're talking about the coding and decoding of the word in its context. If the N word was used in a paper describing it's etymology, historical use, and how it evolved to it's current meaning and use there are very few who would find it offensive. If the N word was yelled at a group of black people with intent to cause emotional harm and devalue them as humans and people there are many more who would find that offensive. The word is the same. The coding, the transmission, and the received message differ and that will affect the level of offense. It's the people who involved in the communication who determine the offense, not the word. Nothing is universally offensive except the intent to cause some sort of harm to others.","human_ref_B":"Firstly I agree with your sentiment 100%. We get to choose how we react, and letting our emotional cues get the better of us just makes us more emotional, I'm sure. After all, we condition our minds as surely as our muscles.  The main flaw in your argument is the idea that the offended need to be the ones to iniate this, or else the \"taking power back\" element will not work. But what if for some people the taboo on the word is one way they take power back (think how reactionary everybody is now). You can't really impose or push this on people, just got to hope people figure it out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4027.0,"score_ratio":129.8}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbml617","c_root_id_B":"gbmms0q","created_at_utc_A":1604855215,"created_at_utc_B":1604855942,"score_A":5,"score_B":1298,"human_ref_A":"Censorship definitely does this. Thinking about tv and movies a loud electric bleep calls way more attention to the word then if they just said it.","human_ref_B":"Words themselves are inherently neutral. It is the people who (using a basic communication model) code and send the word and the people who receive and decode the word who give it's intended meaning and understood meaning. It maybe important to note here that the meaning of the sender is not always accurately received by the recipient. When talking about offense, we're talking about the coding and decoding of the word in its context. If the N word was used in a paper describing it's etymology, historical use, and how it evolved to it's current meaning and use there are very few who would find it offensive. If the N word was yelled at a group of black people with intent to cause emotional harm and devalue them as humans and people there are many more who would find that offensive. The word is the same. The coding, the transmission, and the received message differ and that will affect the level of offense. It's the people who involved in the communication who determine the offense, not the word. Nothing is universally offensive except the intent to cause some sort of harm to others.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":727.0,"score_ratio":259.6}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbn3nk9","c_root_id_B":"gbmjlsl","created_at_utc_A":1604862881,"created_at_utc_B":1604854381,"score_A":154,"score_B":123,"human_ref_A":"I think that this can be true when you are talking about shock value. A word that has been suppressed to the point of falling into disuse can be more shocking when it is used.   Elephant in the room: in most public American places, the N word has become taboo to the point of becoming rare. But it was as offensive as can be long before it was socially forbidden. And the suppression of that word has not increased its offensiveness. It just makes it a bit more (initially) shocking when you hear it loudly in public.    Normalizing something does not make it more or less offensive. If anything, normalizing it just forces those who feel offended to acquiesce to the status quo.    As for the notion of \"reclaiming\" a word, this usually only works when the offended group tries to claim the word as \"their own,\" and usually they will still be just as offended if other people say it. So it is still, in a social sense, forbidden.   What I think is more interesting, and contrary to your point in some ways, is the evolution of words that begins its common use as politically correct but becomes offensive because it is used by bad actors. For example: retarded. For a time, the word \"retarded\" was uncommon to hear, and chosen as an inoffensive word to refer to someone with some kind of mental \"delay\" ('to retard' is basically synonymous with 'to delay'). That was fine until people began using the word \"retarded\" to deride someone that they thought was... an idiot (a word which was also, at one time, inoffensive).   And so people may be tempted to say, well, you just cannot win. You say a word that was once PC, and now it is offensive. And soon the next PC word will be offensive.   So what do we do? Just give up and tell people to be less sensitive? After all: you can't win.    But no - I believe this ignores the REASON that words like retarded became offensive. The reason was that the word \"retarded\" was coopted and applied to people who were not actually retarded. And done so with intent to insult. And so the reason is nothing to do with the word. The reason is... no matter what word we choose, people continue to choose to try and insult each other by comparing people they don't like to people who are mentally impaired, because to them it would be insulting to be considered mentally impaired.    In essence, if that cycle is going to stop, people have to stop treating the mentally disabled as if it would be bad to be one of them - and therefore using the word that describes them as an insult to someone else.","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure I agree. Some words and word usages can fall out of the language entirely.  For example, one of the reasons \"fag\" and \"faggot\" is so nasty is because not only does it imply the other person is homosexual, but that being homosexual is inferior and an awful thing.  So it's not just offensive because it is an insult, but rather because it is a whole package of bigotry on top of the insult. By saying it, you're not only being insulting, you're also getting a double whammy of aggressively implying gay people are nasty and you're not gay, throwing your bigotry out there.  I don't think trying to reclaim the word will do anybody any favors, except reintroduce a whole flavor of bigotry back into popular culture..","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8500.0,"score_ratio":1.2520325203}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmh5b9","c_root_id_B":"gbn3nk9","created_at_utc_A":1604853046,"created_at_utc_B":1604862881,"score_A":44,"score_B":154,"human_ref_A":"I mean... yeah, sometimes reclaiming a word helps. And I agree that you should try to take away power over you from bullies.   That being said, it is not that easy, and we as a society should be promoting civil discourse and discourage insensitive behavior and harassment.   Also, the onus shouldn't be on the victims of harassment to desensitize themselves. I was heavily bullied for 15 years growing up. Insulted, denigrated, called names from fat to smelly to loser, nerd, etc. I have since made great strides to regain my self esteem and to view that era with perspective. That being said, there are still things that trigger a kind of regression for me, that bring my insecurities out.   Now, I can only imagine how that kind of 'ptsd' \/ regression must be like for people suffering from racist or bigoted aggressions, big and small, their whole lives. I dont think it is unreasonable for me to ask people to be kind and to ve sensitive.","human_ref_B":"I think that this can be true when you are talking about shock value. A word that has been suppressed to the point of falling into disuse can be more shocking when it is used.   Elephant in the room: in most public American places, the N word has become taboo to the point of becoming rare. But it was as offensive as can be long before it was socially forbidden. And the suppression of that word has not increased its offensiveness. It just makes it a bit more (initially) shocking when you hear it loudly in public.    Normalizing something does not make it more or less offensive. If anything, normalizing it just forces those who feel offended to acquiesce to the status quo.    As for the notion of \"reclaiming\" a word, this usually only works when the offended group tries to claim the word as \"their own,\" and usually they will still be just as offended if other people say it. So it is still, in a social sense, forbidden.   What I think is more interesting, and contrary to your point in some ways, is the evolution of words that begins its common use as politically correct but becomes offensive because it is used by bad actors. For example: retarded. For a time, the word \"retarded\" was uncommon to hear, and chosen as an inoffensive word to refer to someone with some kind of mental \"delay\" ('to retard' is basically synonymous with 'to delay'). That was fine until people began using the word \"retarded\" to deride someone that they thought was... an idiot (a word which was also, at one time, inoffensive).   And so people may be tempted to say, well, you just cannot win. You say a word that was once PC, and now it is offensive. And soon the next PC word will be offensive.   So what do we do? Just give up and tell people to be less sensitive? After all: you can't win.    But no - I believe this ignores the REASON that words like retarded became offensive. The reason was that the word \"retarded\" was coopted and applied to people who were not actually retarded. And done so with intent to insult. And so the reason is nothing to do with the word. The reason is... no matter what word we choose, people continue to choose to try and insult each other by comparing people they don't like to people who are mentally impaired, because to them it would be insulting to be considered mentally impaired.    In essence, if that cycle is going to stop, people have to stop treating the mentally disabled as if it would be bad to be one of them - and therefore using the word that describes them as an insult to someone else.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9835.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbn3nk9","c_root_id_B":"gbme06u","created_at_utc_A":1604862881,"created_at_utc_B":1604851312,"score_A":154,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"I think that this can be true when you are talking about shock value. A word that has been suppressed to the point of falling into disuse can be more shocking when it is used.   Elephant in the room: in most public American places, the N word has become taboo to the point of becoming rare. But it was as offensive as can be long before it was socially forbidden. And the suppression of that word has not increased its offensiveness. It just makes it a bit more (initially) shocking when you hear it loudly in public.    Normalizing something does not make it more or less offensive. If anything, normalizing it just forces those who feel offended to acquiesce to the status quo.    As for the notion of \"reclaiming\" a word, this usually only works when the offended group tries to claim the word as \"their own,\" and usually they will still be just as offended if other people say it. So it is still, in a social sense, forbidden.   What I think is more interesting, and contrary to your point in some ways, is the evolution of words that begins its common use as politically correct but becomes offensive because it is used by bad actors. For example: retarded. For a time, the word \"retarded\" was uncommon to hear, and chosen as an inoffensive word to refer to someone with some kind of mental \"delay\" ('to retard' is basically synonymous with 'to delay'). That was fine until people began using the word \"retarded\" to deride someone that they thought was... an idiot (a word which was also, at one time, inoffensive).   And so people may be tempted to say, well, you just cannot win. You say a word that was once PC, and now it is offensive. And soon the next PC word will be offensive.   So what do we do? Just give up and tell people to be less sensitive? After all: you can't win.    But no - I believe this ignores the REASON that words like retarded became offensive. The reason was that the word \"retarded\" was coopted and applied to people who were not actually retarded. And done so with intent to insult. And so the reason is nothing to do with the word. The reason is... no matter what word we choose, people continue to choose to try and insult each other by comparing people they don't like to people who are mentally impaired, because to them it would be insulting to be considered mentally impaired.    In essence, if that cycle is going to stop, people have to stop treating the mentally disabled as if it would be bad to be one of them - and therefore using the word that describes them as an insult to someone else.","human_ref_B":"Shouldn't that be up to the personal judgement of the people who are the subject of the insult?  If there's some kind of word insulting a group that I am a part of, it might help me feel better if the word is reclaimed and robbed of its offensive potential. On the other hand, trying to do so might not actually make me feel better, it might just continue to be upsetting.  So I'd say it's fair for people who are subjected to an insult to discuss for themselves what they think about that, but it's not up to outsiders to make that decision, since they lack the ability to understand how any specific given insult actually feels when it's thrown at you.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11569.0,"score_ratio":3.756097561}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbn3nk9","c_root_id_B":"gbmnpwo","created_at_utc_A":1604862881,"created_at_utc_B":1604856300,"score_A":154,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"I think that this can be true when you are talking about shock value. A word that has been suppressed to the point of falling into disuse can be more shocking when it is used.   Elephant in the room: in most public American places, the N word has become taboo to the point of becoming rare. But it was as offensive as can be long before it was socially forbidden. And the suppression of that word has not increased its offensiveness. It just makes it a bit more (initially) shocking when you hear it loudly in public.    Normalizing something does not make it more or less offensive. If anything, normalizing it just forces those who feel offended to acquiesce to the status quo.    As for the notion of \"reclaiming\" a word, this usually only works when the offended group tries to claim the word as \"their own,\" and usually they will still be just as offended if other people say it. So it is still, in a social sense, forbidden.   What I think is more interesting, and contrary to your point in some ways, is the evolution of words that begins its common use as politically correct but becomes offensive because it is used by bad actors. For example: retarded. For a time, the word \"retarded\" was uncommon to hear, and chosen as an inoffensive word to refer to someone with some kind of mental \"delay\" ('to retard' is basically synonymous with 'to delay'). That was fine until people began using the word \"retarded\" to deride someone that they thought was... an idiot (a word which was also, at one time, inoffensive).   And so people may be tempted to say, well, you just cannot win. You say a word that was once PC, and now it is offensive. And soon the next PC word will be offensive.   So what do we do? Just give up and tell people to be less sensitive? After all: you can't win.    But no - I believe this ignores the REASON that words like retarded became offensive. The reason was that the word \"retarded\" was coopted and applied to people who were not actually retarded. And done so with intent to insult. And so the reason is nothing to do with the word. The reason is... no matter what word we choose, people continue to choose to try and insult each other by comparing people they don't like to people who are mentally impaired, because to them it would be insulting to be considered mentally impaired.    In essence, if that cycle is going to stop, people have to stop treating the mentally disabled as if it would be bad to be one of them - and therefore using the word that describes them as an insult to someone else.","human_ref_B":"where is this march of the whores at exactly ?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6581.0,"score_ratio":6.16}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbn3nk9","c_root_id_B":"gbmksuf","created_at_utc_A":1604862881,"created_at_utc_B":1604855024,"score_A":154,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I think that this can be true when you are talking about shock value. A word that has been suppressed to the point of falling into disuse can be more shocking when it is used.   Elephant in the room: in most public American places, the N word has become taboo to the point of becoming rare. But it was as offensive as can be long before it was socially forbidden. And the suppression of that word has not increased its offensiveness. It just makes it a bit more (initially) shocking when you hear it loudly in public.    Normalizing something does not make it more or less offensive. If anything, normalizing it just forces those who feel offended to acquiesce to the status quo.    As for the notion of \"reclaiming\" a word, this usually only works when the offended group tries to claim the word as \"their own,\" and usually they will still be just as offended if other people say it. So it is still, in a social sense, forbidden.   What I think is more interesting, and contrary to your point in some ways, is the evolution of words that begins its common use as politically correct but becomes offensive because it is used by bad actors. For example: retarded. For a time, the word \"retarded\" was uncommon to hear, and chosen as an inoffensive word to refer to someone with some kind of mental \"delay\" ('to retard' is basically synonymous with 'to delay'). That was fine until people began using the word \"retarded\" to deride someone that they thought was... an idiot (a word which was also, at one time, inoffensive).   And so people may be tempted to say, well, you just cannot win. You say a word that was once PC, and now it is offensive. And soon the next PC word will be offensive.   So what do we do? Just give up and tell people to be less sensitive? After all: you can't win.    But no - I believe this ignores the REASON that words like retarded became offensive. The reason was that the word \"retarded\" was coopted and applied to people who were not actually retarded. And done so with intent to insult. And so the reason is nothing to do with the word. The reason is... no matter what word we choose, people continue to choose to try and insult each other by comparing people they don't like to people who are mentally impaired, because to them it would be insulting to be considered mentally impaired.    In essence, if that cycle is going to stop, people have to stop treating the mentally disabled as if it would be bad to be one of them - and therefore using the word that describes them as an insult to someone else.","human_ref_B":"Depends on what you mean by 'forbidding'.  If it comes to legal recourse, I absolutely agree.  However, if you're talking about more informal 'social' forbidding, I disagree. I think it's fine for stores to ask people to leave if they're swearing a lot. I also think it's fine for people on an individual level to ask others not to use certain words around them - their choice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7857.0,"score_ratio":11.8461538462}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmf2x6","c_root_id_B":"gbn3nk9","created_at_utc_A":1604851915,"created_at_utc_B":1604862881,"score_A":10,"score_B":154,"human_ref_A":"Firstly I agree with your sentiment 100%. We get to choose how we react, and letting our emotional cues get the better of us just makes us more emotional, I'm sure. After all, we condition our minds as surely as our muscles.  The main flaw in your argument is the idea that the offended need to be the ones to iniate this, or else the \"taking power back\" element will not work. But what if for some people the taboo on the word is one way they take power back (think how reactionary everybody is now). You can't really impose or push this on people, just got to hope people figure it out.","human_ref_B":"I think that this can be true when you are talking about shock value. A word that has been suppressed to the point of falling into disuse can be more shocking when it is used.   Elephant in the room: in most public American places, the N word has become taboo to the point of becoming rare. But it was as offensive as can be long before it was socially forbidden. And the suppression of that word has not increased its offensiveness. It just makes it a bit more (initially) shocking when you hear it loudly in public.    Normalizing something does not make it more or less offensive. If anything, normalizing it just forces those who feel offended to acquiesce to the status quo.    As for the notion of \"reclaiming\" a word, this usually only works when the offended group tries to claim the word as \"their own,\" and usually they will still be just as offended if other people say it. So it is still, in a social sense, forbidden.   What I think is more interesting, and contrary to your point in some ways, is the evolution of words that begins its common use as politically correct but becomes offensive because it is used by bad actors. For example: retarded. For a time, the word \"retarded\" was uncommon to hear, and chosen as an inoffensive word to refer to someone with some kind of mental \"delay\" ('to retard' is basically synonymous with 'to delay'). That was fine until people began using the word \"retarded\" to deride someone that they thought was... an idiot (a word which was also, at one time, inoffensive).   And so people may be tempted to say, well, you just cannot win. You say a word that was once PC, and now it is offensive. And soon the next PC word will be offensive.   So what do we do? Just give up and tell people to be less sensitive? After all: you can't win.    But no - I believe this ignores the REASON that words like retarded became offensive. The reason was that the word \"retarded\" was coopted and applied to people who were not actually retarded. And done so with intent to insult. And so the reason is nothing to do with the word. The reason is... no matter what word we choose, people continue to choose to try and insult each other by comparing people they don't like to people who are mentally impaired, because to them it would be insulting to be considered mentally impaired.    In essence, if that cycle is going to stop, people have to stop treating the mentally disabled as if it would be bad to be one of them - and therefore using the word that describes them as an insult to someone else.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10966.0,"score_ratio":15.4}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbml617","c_root_id_B":"gbn3nk9","created_at_utc_A":1604855215,"created_at_utc_B":1604862881,"score_A":5,"score_B":154,"human_ref_A":"Censorship definitely does this. Thinking about tv and movies a loud electric bleep calls way more attention to the word then if they just said it.","human_ref_B":"I think that this can be true when you are talking about shock value. A word that has been suppressed to the point of falling into disuse can be more shocking when it is used.   Elephant in the room: in most public American places, the N word has become taboo to the point of becoming rare. But it was as offensive as can be long before it was socially forbidden. And the suppression of that word has not increased its offensiveness. It just makes it a bit more (initially) shocking when you hear it loudly in public.    Normalizing something does not make it more or less offensive. If anything, normalizing it just forces those who feel offended to acquiesce to the status quo.    As for the notion of \"reclaiming\" a word, this usually only works when the offended group tries to claim the word as \"their own,\" and usually they will still be just as offended if other people say it. So it is still, in a social sense, forbidden.   What I think is more interesting, and contrary to your point in some ways, is the evolution of words that begins its common use as politically correct but becomes offensive because it is used by bad actors. For example: retarded. For a time, the word \"retarded\" was uncommon to hear, and chosen as an inoffensive word to refer to someone with some kind of mental \"delay\" ('to retard' is basically synonymous with 'to delay'). That was fine until people began using the word \"retarded\" to deride someone that they thought was... an idiot (a word which was also, at one time, inoffensive).   And so people may be tempted to say, well, you just cannot win. You say a word that was once PC, and now it is offensive. And soon the next PC word will be offensive.   So what do we do? Just give up and tell people to be less sensitive? After all: you can't win.    But no - I believe this ignores the REASON that words like retarded became offensive. The reason was that the word \"retarded\" was coopted and applied to people who were not actually retarded. And done so with intent to insult. And so the reason is nothing to do with the word. The reason is... no matter what word we choose, people continue to choose to try and insult each other by comparing people they don't like to people who are mentally impaired, because to them it would be insulting to be considered mentally impaired.    In essence, if that cycle is going to stop, people have to stop treating the mentally disabled as if it would be bad to be one of them - and therefore using the word that describes them as an insult to someone else.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7666.0,"score_ratio":30.8}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbn3nk9","c_root_id_B":"gbmnrof","created_at_utc_A":1604862881,"created_at_utc_B":1604856318,"score_A":154,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think that this can be true when you are talking about shock value. A word that has been suppressed to the point of falling into disuse can be more shocking when it is used.   Elephant in the room: in most public American places, the N word has become taboo to the point of becoming rare. But it was as offensive as can be long before it was socially forbidden. And the suppression of that word has not increased its offensiveness. It just makes it a bit more (initially) shocking when you hear it loudly in public.    Normalizing something does not make it more or less offensive. If anything, normalizing it just forces those who feel offended to acquiesce to the status quo.    As for the notion of \"reclaiming\" a word, this usually only works when the offended group tries to claim the word as \"their own,\" and usually they will still be just as offended if other people say it. So it is still, in a social sense, forbidden.   What I think is more interesting, and contrary to your point in some ways, is the evolution of words that begins its common use as politically correct but becomes offensive because it is used by bad actors. For example: retarded. For a time, the word \"retarded\" was uncommon to hear, and chosen as an inoffensive word to refer to someone with some kind of mental \"delay\" ('to retard' is basically synonymous with 'to delay'). That was fine until people began using the word \"retarded\" to deride someone that they thought was... an idiot (a word which was also, at one time, inoffensive).   And so people may be tempted to say, well, you just cannot win. You say a word that was once PC, and now it is offensive. And soon the next PC word will be offensive.   So what do we do? Just give up and tell people to be less sensitive? After all: you can't win.    But no - I believe this ignores the REASON that words like retarded became offensive. The reason was that the word \"retarded\" was coopted and applied to people who were not actually retarded. And done so with intent to insult. And so the reason is nothing to do with the word. The reason is... no matter what word we choose, people continue to choose to try and insult each other by comparing people they don't like to people who are mentally impaired, because to them it would be insulting to be considered mentally impaired.    In essence, if that cycle is going to stop, people have to stop treating the mentally disabled as if it would be bad to be one of them - and therefore using the word that describes them as an insult to someone else.","human_ref_B":"What do you mean by \"forbidding\"? There are certain words whose definition or connotation have made them offensive to society in general or to specific groups. Most words didn't start as offensive, but were used specifically to insult and so became... Insulting.  There are a lot of things people do or say that are offensive? If I give someone the middle finger, that is understood to be an insult. I wouldn't say \"Relax it's just a finger\" because we as a society have determined that that gesture is intended to cause offense. It's not *forbidden* to give the finger, nor are any words *forbidden* to my knowledge, but polite people don't do it out of respect for others. Unless you want to offend them.  So how about we respect one another and our differences and just... Don't use words you know to be offensive. It's actually incredibly easy. To the degree that having these conversations over what words can and can't be said has become tiresome to me.  You can say whatever you want. You just can't say whatever you want *and* not be considered a disrespectful person by those around you.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6563.0,"score_ratio":30.8}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmjlsl","c_root_id_B":"gbmh5b9","created_at_utc_A":1604854381,"created_at_utc_B":1604853046,"score_A":123,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"I'm not sure I agree. Some words and word usages can fall out of the language entirely.  For example, one of the reasons \"fag\" and \"faggot\" is so nasty is because not only does it imply the other person is homosexual, but that being homosexual is inferior and an awful thing.  So it's not just offensive because it is an insult, but rather because it is a whole package of bigotry on top of the insult. By saying it, you're not only being insulting, you're also getting a double whammy of aggressively implying gay people are nasty and you're not gay, throwing your bigotry out there.  I don't think trying to reclaim the word will do anybody any favors, except reintroduce a whole flavor of bigotry back into popular culture..","human_ref_B":"I mean... yeah, sometimes reclaiming a word helps. And I agree that you should try to take away power over you from bullies.   That being said, it is not that easy, and we as a society should be promoting civil discourse and discourage insensitive behavior and harassment.   Also, the onus shouldn't be on the victims of harassment to desensitize themselves. I was heavily bullied for 15 years growing up. Insulted, denigrated, called names from fat to smelly to loser, nerd, etc. I have since made great strides to regain my self esteem and to view that era with perspective. That being said, there are still things that trigger a kind of regression for me, that bring my insecurities out.   Now, I can only imagine how that kind of 'ptsd' \/ regression must be like for people suffering from racist or bigoted aggressions, big and small, their whole lives. I dont think it is unreasonable for me to ask people to be kind and to ve sensitive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1335.0,"score_ratio":2.7954545455}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmjlsl","c_root_id_B":"gbme06u","created_at_utc_A":1604854381,"created_at_utc_B":1604851312,"score_A":123,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"I'm not sure I agree. Some words and word usages can fall out of the language entirely.  For example, one of the reasons \"fag\" and \"faggot\" is so nasty is because not only does it imply the other person is homosexual, but that being homosexual is inferior and an awful thing.  So it's not just offensive because it is an insult, but rather because it is a whole package of bigotry on top of the insult. By saying it, you're not only being insulting, you're also getting a double whammy of aggressively implying gay people are nasty and you're not gay, throwing your bigotry out there.  I don't think trying to reclaim the word will do anybody any favors, except reintroduce a whole flavor of bigotry back into popular culture..","human_ref_B":"Shouldn't that be up to the personal judgement of the people who are the subject of the insult?  If there's some kind of word insulting a group that I am a part of, it might help me feel better if the word is reclaimed and robbed of its offensive potential. On the other hand, trying to do so might not actually make me feel better, it might just continue to be upsetting.  So I'd say it's fair for people who are subjected to an insult to discuss for themselves what they think about that, but it's not up to outsiders to make that decision, since they lack the ability to understand how any specific given insult actually feels when it's thrown at you.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3069.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmjlsl","c_root_id_B":"gbmf2x6","created_at_utc_A":1604854381,"created_at_utc_B":1604851915,"score_A":123,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I'm not sure I agree. Some words and word usages can fall out of the language entirely.  For example, one of the reasons \"fag\" and \"faggot\" is so nasty is because not only does it imply the other person is homosexual, but that being homosexual is inferior and an awful thing.  So it's not just offensive because it is an insult, but rather because it is a whole package of bigotry on top of the insult. By saying it, you're not only being insulting, you're also getting a double whammy of aggressively implying gay people are nasty and you're not gay, throwing your bigotry out there.  I don't think trying to reclaim the word will do anybody any favors, except reintroduce a whole flavor of bigotry back into popular culture..","human_ref_B":"Firstly I agree with your sentiment 100%. We get to choose how we react, and letting our emotional cues get the better of us just makes us more emotional, I'm sure. After all, we condition our minds as surely as our muscles.  The main flaw in your argument is the idea that the offended need to be the ones to iniate this, or else the \"taking power back\" element will not work. But what if for some people the taboo on the word is one way they take power back (think how reactionary everybody is now). You can't really impose or push this on people, just got to hope people figure it out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2466.0,"score_ratio":12.3}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbme06u","c_root_id_B":"gbmh5b9","created_at_utc_A":1604851312,"created_at_utc_B":1604853046,"score_A":41,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"Shouldn't that be up to the personal judgement of the people who are the subject of the insult?  If there's some kind of word insulting a group that I am a part of, it might help me feel better if the word is reclaimed and robbed of its offensive potential. On the other hand, trying to do so might not actually make me feel better, it might just continue to be upsetting.  So I'd say it's fair for people who are subjected to an insult to discuss for themselves what they think about that, but it's not up to outsiders to make that decision, since they lack the ability to understand how any specific given insult actually feels when it's thrown at you.","human_ref_B":"I mean... yeah, sometimes reclaiming a word helps. And I agree that you should try to take away power over you from bullies.   That being said, it is not that easy, and we as a society should be promoting civil discourse and discourage insensitive behavior and harassment.   Also, the onus shouldn't be on the victims of harassment to desensitize themselves. I was heavily bullied for 15 years growing up. Insulted, denigrated, called names from fat to smelly to loser, nerd, etc. I have since made great strides to regain my self esteem and to view that era with perspective. That being said, there are still things that trigger a kind of regression for me, that bring my insecurities out.   Now, I can only imagine how that kind of 'ptsd' \/ regression must be like for people suffering from racist or bigoted aggressions, big and small, their whole lives. I dont think it is unreasonable for me to ask people to be kind and to ve sensitive.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1734.0,"score_ratio":1.0731707317}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmf2x6","c_root_id_B":"gbmh5b9","created_at_utc_A":1604851915,"created_at_utc_B":1604853046,"score_A":10,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"Firstly I agree with your sentiment 100%. We get to choose how we react, and letting our emotional cues get the better of us just makes us more emotional, I'm sure. After all, we condition our minds as surely as our muscles.  The main flaw in your argument is the idea that the offended need to be the ones to iniate this, or else the \"taking power back\" element will not work. But what if for some people the taboo on the word is one way they take power back (think how reactionary everybody is now). You can't really impose or push this on people, just got to hope people figure it out.","human_ref_B":"I mean... yeah, sometimes reclaiming a word helps. And I agree that you should try to take away power over you from bullies.   That being said, it is not that easy, and we as a society should be promoting civil discourse and discourage insensitive behavior and harassment.   Also, the onus shouldn't be on the victims of harassment to desensitize themselves. I was heavily bullied for 15 years growing up. Insulted, denigrated, called names from fat to smelly to loser, nerd, etc. I have since made great strides to regain my self esteem and to view that era with perspective. That being said, there are still things that trigger a kind of regression for me, that bring my insecurities out.   Now, I can only imagine how that kind of 'ptsd' \/ regression must be like for people suffering from racist or bigoted aggressions, big and small, their whole lives. I dont think it is unreasonable for me to ask people to be kind and to ve sensitive.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1131.0,"score_ratio":4.4}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmksuf","c_root_id_B":"gbmnpwo","created_at_utc_A":1604855024,"created_at_utc_B":1604856300,"score_A":13,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Depends on what you mean by 'forbidding'.  If it comes to legal recourse, I absolutely agree.  However, if you're talking about more informal 'social' forbidding, I disagree. I think it's fine for stores to ask people to leave if they're swearing a lot. I also think it's fine for people on an individual level to ask others not to use certain words around them - their choice.","human_ref_B":"where is this march of the whores at exactly ?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1276.0,"score_ratio":1.9230769231}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmf2x6","c_root_id_B":"gbmnpwo","created_at_utc_A":1604851915,"created_at_utc_B":1604856300,"score_A":10,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Firstly I agree with your sentiment 100%. We get to choose how we react, and letting our emotional cues get the better of us just makes us more emotional, I'm sure. After all, we condition our minds as surely as our muscles.  The main flaw in your argument is the idea that the offended need to be the ones to iniate this, or else the \"taking power back\" element will not work. But what if for some people the taboo on the word is one way they take power back (think how reactionary everybody is now). You can't really impose or push this on people, just got to hope people figure it out.","human_ref_B":"where is this march of the whores at exactly ?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4385.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmnpwo","c_root_id_B":"gbml617","created_at_utc_A":1604856300,"created_at_utc_B":1604855215,"score_A":25,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"where is this march of the whores at exactly ?","human_ref_B":"Censorship definitely does this. Thinking about tv and movies a loud electric bleep calls way more attention to the word then if they just said it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1085.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"jqdmxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Forbidding a word because it is offensive, makes it more offensive First of all, I should clarify that I never use words that clearly offend minorities **BUT** I was thinking about something about my Social Psychology teacher told us about, \"March of the Whores\", where women intentionally used that word on them. Teacher said that thing makes the word more weak. Like \"If I, a sexual active woman\/stripper\/sexual worker, call myself like this, when other people does this, that's not gonna hurt me\"  So, if we let people say whatever they want and do not give it importance, we can sleep well at night knowing that we're more than a simple word.","c_root_id_A":"gbmf2x6","c_root_id_B":"gbmksuf","created_at_utc_A":1604851915,"created_at_utc_B":1604855024,"score_A":10,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Firstly I agree with your sentiment 100%. We get to choose how we react, and letting our emotional cues get the better of us just makes us more emotional, I'm sure. After all, we condition our minds as surely as our muscles.  The main flaw in your argument is the idea that the offended need to be the ones to iniate this, or else the \"taking power back\" element will not work. But what if for some people the taboo on the word is one way they take power back (think how reactionary everybody is now). You can't really impose or push this on people, just got to hope people figure it out.","human_ref_B":"Depends on what you mean by 'forbidding'.  If it comes to legal recourse, I absolutely agree.  However, if you're talking about more informal 'social' forbidding, I disagree. I think it's fine for stores to ask people to leave if they're swearing a lot. I also think it's fine for people on an individual level to ask others not to use certain words around them - their choice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3109.0,"score_ratio":1.3}
+{"post_id":"la3rwp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"CMV: People and organizations should have to disclose all instances of paying (or otherwise compensating) for another person or organization to speak for them. The definition of lobbying is too narrow. The world of influence is complicated. We have overt advertisements, which are annoying, but at least obviously advertisements. But we also have an entire industry of subtle advertisements. Politicians and companies can purchase crowds to flood protests or hearings. They can buy actors to infiltrate these groups and spread a specific message. They can hire people to go on any number of forums to promote a message. All under the guise of someone who honestly believes the message, or as a member of an established community. Frankly, it makes one paranoid to consider that any given moment on a discussion board, that honest discussion you thought you were having about X might actually be with a shill paid for by someone who stands to benefit immensely from X. The presumption of good faith discussion is lost thanks to this industry.   The presumption of good faith discussion is incredibly valuable. It's what makes the first amendment work. Without that presumption, the first amendment doesn't work, it's worthless. Therefore, the first amendment should not apply to paid for speech. Anonymizing speech is valuable for genuine held beliefs. But it is not valuable for paid actors.   The most effective way to protect genuine belief holders, and not paid actors is to require any organization that is buying speech to disclose the speech they buy. If an oil company wants to flood the internet with overt and subtle advertisements against hybrid cars, then it should be required to report that within days if not hours of signing the contract with the advertising\/shill agency. The reports should be widely and freely available for anyone to check, so they can determine the likelihood of the message they are engaging with being subtle advertising.   Companies that fail to register paid speech should be subject to fines and potentially jail time for corporate officers. Individuals should face the same risks. If fines are the preferred punishment, they should actually be costly enough to make a difference, rather than just being the cost of doing business, but I'm not sure there is a fine costly enough to make a difference. Advertising agencies should be required to also report any paid speech they engage in, which would be all of their business, as a secondary means of catching bad actors.","c_root_id_A":"glm3i1e","c_root_id_B":"glm1k1m","created_at_utc_A":1612195639,"created_at_utc_B":1612194909,"score_A":11,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Paying people to make a public argument is the least relevant element of lobbying.  The thing that we should be worried about is the \"form legislation\" written by companies that gets passed through basically unchanged to actual laws and regulation. You can be pro-fracking or anti-fracking all you want, you can be paid to being generally pro or against it event, but that's a couple step removed from companies and interest groups being able to directly influence anything.  In fact, I'm not entirely certain how paid actors going to a city council meeting is supposed to change he actual laws. By the time it gets to public comment most of the actual work has been done and the detail is hammered out. If the elected officials generally agree then the paid actors can be safely ignored, the only time they would be relevant is if some of the elected officials want an excuse to disagree... but they can use any number of pretexts for that.  I fail to see what, if any, relevance posting on a discussion board would have on policy at all.  Meanwhile, you have companies writing the regulation that will apply to them. You have them slanting it to benefit themselves and strike at their rivals in the industry. Regulation is often used as a sword to protect established businesses against their rivals. Just ask small famers who struggle with environmental regulations when the largest agri-businesses have departments that successfully exempt them from the most onerous requirement thereby giving the biggest companies an unjust advantage and undermining the ostensible purpose of the regulation by allowing the pollution to continue basically unabated.   This view seems focused very heavily on you not wanting to be lied to rather without any real enforcement mechanism rather than looking at how lobbying actually interacts with politics. It seems that, if anything, the concern with lawmaking is a way to give the fact that you suspect that your ideological opponents are shills weight. While there are absolutely advertising that pretends to be genuine posts, and foreign governments do pay people to back their ideological line, these efforts are minuscule relative to the people's honest opinions and it's doubtful that there would be any meaningful change.  People like companies. Trying to toss a CEO in jail because you don't believe that anyone is a fan of the company is going to not work out. Nationality is a major part of identity. The difference between a hardcore nationalist in China and someone paid by the Chinese government to back their regime on social media is that one gets paid for something they'd do anyways.","human_ref_B":"Should it be legal to publish an anonymous newsletter or leaflet? If so, how do your disclosure rules deal with that?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":730.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
+{"post_id":"apk8ur","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.","c_root_id_A":"eg941p4","c_root_id_B":"eg9aleb","created_at_utc_A":1549917557,"created_at_utc_B":1549921226,"score_A":40,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"People Approach Dr. Phil to be on their show. He just facilitates.   Old time Freak shows used to find people then present them for the world to see.   I think this a large distinction.","human_ref_B":"I don't know \"freak shows\" but I do believe that Dr. Phil is based on the same sort of sensational and often salacious presentation of the skeletons in people's closets as Jerry Springer. It's very base, and I think it quenches the same thirst in people as listening to gossip, and I don't think it's altogether healthy, psychologically speaking. That said, Dr. Phil isn't looked at as being trashy because he is supposedly doing it to try to help people, but I have a hard time seeing it as being very much different in the end.   This is all my own opinions though, and I find almost all daytime television to be quite trashy, and avoid it as such.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3669.0,"score_ratio":1.7}
+{"post_id":"apk8ur","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.","c_root_id_A":"eg91e61","c_root_id_B":"eg9aleb","created_at_utc_A":1549916063,"created_at_utc_B":1549921226,"score_A":32,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"I think both the target audience of Dr. Phil and the emotional response of the audience is different than what you got from freak shows. While not an expert on the topic I feel r\/wtf is a lot closer to a freak show and I\u2019m willing to bet there are few people who like both. You have people going there to be grossed out. While at least in theory Dr. Phil is trying to help people. Sure it may not actually help people, but if that\u2019s the narrative the audience is buying then it is distinctly different than a freak show. My guess that people also fell they get some advice out of it. That they can take this advice and apply it to their own life.","human_ref_B":"I don't know \"freak shows\" but I do believe that Dr. Phil is based on the same sort of sensational and often salacious presentation of the skeletons in people's closets as Jerry Springer. It's very base, and I think it quenches the same thirst in people as listening to gossip, and I don't think it's altogether healthy, psychologically speaking. That said, Dr. Phil isn't looked at as being trashy because he is supposedly doing it to try to help people, but I have a hard time seeing it as being very much different in the end.   This is all my own opinions though, and I find almost all daytime television to be quite trashy, and avoid it as such.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5163.0,"score_ratio":2.125}
+{"post_id":"apk8ur","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.","c_root_id_A":"eg92y9b","c_root_id_B":"eg9aleb","created_at_utc_A":1549916940,"created_at_utc_B":1549921226,"score_A":27,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"> Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at  And gave people jobs who were otherwise unemployable.  > Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Only because we have a system in place to provide minimal levels of income for people with significant disabilities.  Otherwise you're being a bit pretentious to look down on them.  > any people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy  Treatable afflictions makes it different for one.  These are people that can get help and the audience wants to see helped.  Dr. Phil spends a lot of time peddling garbage products and pushing advice applicable to the viewers, like basic marriage advice.  It really isn't about selling someone to laugh at as much as selling help.  Both the prospect of seeing someone helped and also the prospect of helping the viewers who can suffer similar mental health and relationship issues.  > On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  Assuming they aren't just playing it up for TV in the first place.","human_ref_B":"I don't know \"freak shows\" but I do believe that Dr. Phil is based on the same sort of sensational and often salacious presentation of the skeletons in people's closets as Jerry Springer. It's very base, and I think it quenches the same thirst in people as listening to gossip, and I don't think it's altogether healthy, psychologically speaking. That said, Dr. Phil isn't looked at as being trashy because he is supposedly doing it to try to help people, but I have a hard time seeing it as being very much different in the end.   This is all my own opinions though, and I find almost all daytime television to be quite trashy, and avoid it as such.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4286.0,"score_ratio":2.5185185185}
+{"post_id":"apk8ur","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.","c_root_id_A":"eg98i2q","c_root_id_B":"eg9aleb","created_at_utc_A":1549920036,"created_at_utc_B":1549921226,"score_A":17,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"Dr. Phil is not a psychologist.","human_ref_B":"I don't know \"freak shows\" but I do believe that Dr. Phil is based on the same sort of sensational and often salacious presentation of the skeletons in people's closets as Jerry Springer. It's very base, and I think it quenches the same thirst in people as listening to gossip, and I don't think it's altogether healthy, psychologically speaking. That said, Dr. Phil isn't looked at as being trashy because he is supposedly doing it to try to help people, but I have a hard time seeing it as being very much different in the end.   This is all my own opinions though, and I find almost all daytime television to be quite trashy, and avoid it as such.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1190.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"apk8ur","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.","c_root_id_A":"eg9aleb","c_root_id_B":"eg97y6y","created_at_utc_A":1549921226,"created_at_utc_B":1549919727,"score_A":68,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't know \"freak shows\" but I do believe that Dr. Phil is based on the same sort of sensational and often salacious presentation of the skeletons in people's closets as Jerry Springer. It's very base, and I think it quenches the same thirst in people as listening to gossip, and I don't think it's altogether healthy, psychologically speaking. That said, Dr. Phil isn't looked at as being trashy because he is supposedly doing it to try to help people, but I have a hard time seeing it as being very much different in the end.   This is all my own opinions though, and I find almost all daytime television to be quite trashy, and avoid it as such.","human_ref_B":"I dunno about the freakshow thing but ive heard bad things about dr phil. Id say its more like jerry springer than a freakshow.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1499.0,"score_ratio":22.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"apk8ur","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.","c_root_id_A":"eg941p4","c_root_id_B":"eg91e61","created_at_utc_A":1549917557,"created_at_utc_B":1549916063,"score_A":40,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"People Approach Dr. Phil to be on their show. He just facilitates.   Old time Freak shows used to find people then present them for the world to see.   I think this a large distinction.","human_ref_B":"I think both the target audience of Dr. Phil and the emotional response of the audience is different than what you got from freak shows. While not an expert on the topic I feel r\/wtf is a lot closer to a freak show and I\u2019m willing to bet there are few people who like both. You have people going there to be grossed out. While at least in theory Dr. Phil is trying to help people. Sure it may not actually help people, but if that\u2019s the narrative the audience is buying then it is distinctly different than a freak show. My guess that people also fell they get some advice out of it. That they can take this advice and apply it to their own life.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1494.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"apk8ur","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.","c_root_id_A":"eg941p4","c_root_id_B":"eg92y9b","created_at_utc_A":1549917557,"created_at_utc_B":1549916940,"score_A":40,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"People Approach Dr. Phil to be on their show. He just facilitates.   Old time Freak shows used to find people then present them for the world to see.   I think this a large distinction.","human_ref_B":"> Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at  And gave people jobs who were otherwise unemployable.  > Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Only because we have a system in place to provide minimal levels of income for people with significant disabilities.  Otherwise you're being a bit pretentious to look down on them.  > any people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy  Treatable afflictions makes it different for one.  These are people that can get help and the audience wants to see helped.  Dr. Phil spends a lot of time peddling garbage products and pushing advice applicable to the viewers, like basic marriage advice.  It really isn't about selling someone to laugh at as much as selling help.  Both the prospect of seeing someone helped and also the prospect of helping the viewers who can suffer similar mental health and relationship issues.  > On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  Assuming they aren't just playing it up for TV in the first place.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":617.0,"score_ratio":1.4814814815}
+{"post_id":"apk8ur","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.","c_root_id_A":"eg97y6y","c_root_id_B":"eg98i2q","created_at_utc_A":1549919727,"created_at_utc_B":1549920036,"score_A":3,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"I dunno about the freakshow thing but ive heard bad things about dr phil. Id say its more like jerry springer than a freakshow.","human_ref_B":"Dr. Phil is not a psychologist.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":309.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"apk8ur","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.","c_root_id_A":"ega1z9i","c_root_id_B":"eg97y6y","created_at_utc_A":1549939876,"created_at_utc_B":1549919727,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I only see one other thread calling this out, and you haven't conceded the point yet, so I'm going to add my voice and inform you that not only is Dr. Phil not a psychologist, it is strictly illegal for him to tell people he is one, to say that he is trained or experienced as a one, or to imply he has expertise in practicing psychology.  He walks the line, and has gotten in legal trouble over this before.  To clarify, he *is* a doctor of Psychology, and has been a licensed psychologist in the past, but he does not currently hold a license, and there are very serious laws about fraudulently claiming to be able to provide real medical advice without keeping up on your licensing and training.  To let him treat anyone's mental disorder would be like letting a retired doctor do so.  Worse, maybe, depending on why he lost his license, but in either case, his knowledge of the subject grows more and more out-of-date every day and it is literally illegal for him to give professional psychological advice.","human_ref_B":"I dunno about the freakshow thing but ive heard bad things about dr phil. Id say its more like jerry springer than a freakshow.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20149.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"apk8ur","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the \"performers\".  Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health.  And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.","c_root_id_A":"ega3iia","c_root_id_B":"eg97y6y","created_at_utc_A":1549940976,"created_at_utc_B":1549919727,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Except for the fact that Dr. Phil and similar shows are heavily scripted, cleverly edited, and over dramatized like reality TV.","human_ref_B":"I dunno about the freakshow thing but ive heard bad things about dr phil. Id say its more like jerry springer than a freakshow.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21249.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"p052ob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: collecting unemployment and bypassing underpaid jobs is a reasonable thing that shouldn\u2019t be looked down upon. From my understanding, unemployment exists to prevent a tidal wave of job loss and keep money flowing through our society.  But it\u2019s also an insurance policy. That people pay for.  If I had a 2021 Mercedes-Benz, it got totaled due to natural events that were covered in my contract it would be absolutely insane to say \u201cNo, don\u2019t pay me. I found an 81 Honda I can use. I\u2019m good.\u201d I would claim every penny that I signed up for.  There\u2019s nothing wrong in my mind of using all your benefit until you get a job in the same league as the one you lost. But I hear all the time that those people are lazy and \u201cdon\u2019t want to work\u201d. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h84e0ed","c_root_id_B":"h84ajcc","created_at_utc_A":1628386648,"created_at_utc_B":1628384750,"score_A":71,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"This reminds me of one a funny exchange I had with a tourist.   >Me: So what do you do for a living, pal?  >Guy: I am an unemployed rocket scientist.   Anyway, I think you view is the actual view held by most people and governments. I doubt that anyone would expect my laid off rocket scientist buddy to pass on unemployment benefits just because the local Baskin Robbins is hiring.","human_ref_B":"I think you're arguing against the strawman position set up by the other side of the debate. it's easy to paint a group of people as \"lazy\" when they aren't. For unemployment benefits, occasionally that comes with a racial or ethnic component.   But I think the argument from the other side is that the people who are sitting out are either making more money by not working because of pandemic benefits, or would have been working for minimum wage anyway (meaning their replacement jobs couldn't be underpaid).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1898.0,"score_ratio":10.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"p052ob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: collecting unemployment and bypassing underpaid jobs is a reasonable thing that shouldn\u2019t be looked down upon. From my understanding, unemployment exists to prevent a tidal wave of job loss and keep money flowing through our society.  But it\u2019s also an insurance policy. That people pay for.  If I had a 2021 Mercedes-Benz, it got totaled due to natural events that were covered in my contract it would be absolutely insane to say \u201cNo, don\u2019t pay me. I found an 81 Honda I can use. I\u2019m good.\u201d I would claim every penny that I signed up for.  There\u2019s nothing wrong in my mind of using all your benefit until you get a job in the same league as the one you lost. But I hear all the time that those people are lazy and \u201cdon\u2019t want to work\u201d. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h84e0ed","c_root_id_B":"h84abh6","created_at_utc_A":1628386648,"created_at_utc_B":1628384634,"score_A":71,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"This reminds me of one a funny exchange I had with a tourist.   >Me: So what do you do for a living, pal?  >Guy: I am an unemployed rocket scientist.   Anyway, I think you view is the actual view held by most people and governments. I doubt that anyone would expect my laid off rocket scientist buddy to pass on unemployment benefits just because the local Baskin Robbins is hiring.","human_ref_B":"But in your analogy, *you* paid insurance. With unemployment, *we* pay it - that's the difference. So if you stay on benefits that other people are paying for while you look for a job in the same league as the one you lost, people are eventually going to start asking you questions like, \"Why can't you get a job in the meantime and quit when you find a better position?\" or \"Why did you get fired from your good job in the first place?\" or \"what happens if everyone on benefits thinks like this?\" and so on.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2014.0,"score_ratio":11.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"p052ob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: collecting unemployment and bypassing underpaid jobs is a reasonable thing that shouldn\u2019t be looked down upon. From my understanding, unemployment exists to prevent a tidal wave of job loss and keep money flowing through our society.  But it\u2019s also an insurance policy. That people pay for.  If I had a 2021 Mercedes-Benz, it got totaled due to natural events that were covered in my contract it would be absolutely insane to say \u201cNo, don\u2019t pay me. I found an 81 Honda I can use. I\u2019m good.\u201d I would claim every penny that I signed up for.  There\u2019s nothing wrong in my mind of using all your benefit until you get a job in the same league as the one you lost. But I hear all the time that those people are lazy and \u201cdon\u2019t want to work\u201d. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h84ajcc","c_root_id_B":"h84phl6","created_at_utc_A":1628384750,"created_at_utc_B":1628393091,"score_A":7,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"I think you're arguing against the strawman position set up by the other side of the debate. it's easy to paint a group of people as \"lazy\" when they aren't. For unemployment benefits, occasionally that comes with a racial or ethnic component.   But I think the argument from the other side is that the people who are sitting out are either making more money by not working because of pandemic benefits, or would have been working for minimum wage anyway (meaning their replacement jobs couldn't be underpaid).","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t think any reasonable person really looks down on someone collecting unemployment after losing their job (or holding out for a *reasonable* amount of time for the right job) \u2026 it\u2019s when people are serially unemployed, or purposefully collecting unemployment in lieu of working as a long term situation that it begins to be a problem.   It *should* be looked down upon in these situations because unemployment isn\u2019t meant to function in that way. With your insurance analogy, it would be like everyone wrecking their car on purpose to get a new one\u2026 eventually that insurance company would go bankrupt. The \u201cpot\u201d for unemployment can be thought of similarly.   It functions fine as an insurance policy for those who lose their jobs - as it should. And some people do take advantage and the system doesn\u2019t collapse because it has enough wiggle room. If everyone started taking advantage in the above way though it wouldn\u2019t be sustainable. The people who take advantage also likely make it worse for people who really need it. They siphon funds from people who may seriously be screwed without it, and cause legislation that also might deny folks who really could\u2019ve used that help.   Based on that, any non-sustainable behavior or behavior that subtracts from others should absolutely be looked down upon.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8341.0,"score_ratio":6.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"p052ob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: collecting unemployment and bypassing underpaid jobs is a reasonable thing that shouldn\u2019t be looked down upon. From my understanding, unemployment exists to prevent a tidal wave of job loss and keep money flowing through our society.  But it\u2019s also an insurance policy. That people pay for.  If I had a 2021 Mercedes-Benz, it got totaled due to natural events that were covered in my contract it would be absolutely insane to say \u201cNo, don\u2019t pay me. I found an 81 Honda I can use. I\u2019m good.\u201d I would claim every penny that I signed up for.  There\u2019s nothing wrong in my mind of using all your benefit until you get a job in the same league as the one you lost. But I hear all the time that those people are lazy and \u201cdon\u2019t want to work\u201d. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h84phl6","c_root_id_B":"h84abh6","created_at_utc_A":1628393091,"created_at_utc_B":1628384634,"score_A":47,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t think any reasonable person really looks down on someone collecting unemployment after losing their job (or holding out for a *reasonable* amount of time for the right job) \u2026 it\u2019s when people are serially unemployed, or purposefully collecting unemployment in lieu of working as a long term situation that it begins to be a problem.   It *should* be looked down upon in these situations because unemployment isn\u2019t meant to function in that way. With your insurance analogy, it would be like everyone wrecking their car on purpose to get a new one\u2026 eventually that insurance company would go bankrupt. The \u201cpot\u201d for unemployment can be thought of similarly.   It functions fine as an insurance policy for those who lose their jobs - as it should. And some people do take advantage and the system doesn\u2019t collapse because it has enough wiggle room. If everyone started taking advantage in the above way though it wouldn\u2019t be sustainable. The people who take advantage also likely make it worse for people who really need it. They siphon funds from people who may seriously be screwed without it, and cause legislation that also might deny folks who really could\u2019ve used that help.   Based on that, any non-sustainable behavior or behavior that subtracts from others should absolutely be looked down upon.","human_ref_B":"But in your analogy, *you* paid insurance. With unemployment, *we* pay it - that's the difference. So if you stay on benefits that other people are paying for while you look for a job in the same league as the one you lost, people are eventually going to start asking you questions like, \"Why can't you get a job in the meantime and quit when you find a better position?\" or \"Why did you get fired from your good job in the first place?\" or \"what happens if everyone on benefits thinks like this?\" and so on.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8457.0,"score_ratio":7.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"p052ob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: collecting unemployment and bypassing underpaid jobs is a reasonable thing that shouldn\u2019t be looked down upon. From my understanding, unemployment exists to prevent a tidal wave of job loss and keep money flowing through our society.  But it\u2019s also an insurance policy. That people pay for.  If I had a 2021 Mercedes-Benz, it got totaled due to natural events that were covered in my contract it would be absolutely insane to say \u201cNo, don\u2019t pay me. I found an 81 Honda I can use. I\u2019m good.\u201d I would claim every penny that I signed up for.  There\u2019s nothing wrong in my mind of using all your benefit until you get a job in the same league as the one you lost. But I hear all the time that those people are lazy and \u201cdon\u2019t want to work\u201d. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h84ajcc","c_root_id_B":"h859q40","created_at_utc_A":1628384750,"created_at_utc_B":1628407264,"score_A":7,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I think you're arguing against the strawman position set up by the other side of the debate. it's easy to paint a group of people as \"lazy\" when they aren't. For unemployment benefits, occasionally that comes with a racial or ethnic component.   But I think the argument from the other side is that the people who are sitting out are either making more money by not working because of pandemic benefits, or would have been working for minimum wage anyway (meaning their replacement jobs couldn't be underpaid).","human_ref_B":"The mentality of sucking out all benefits possible before doing what must be done is a greedy mentality that will drain society. It is a mentality we should fight against.  This greedy mentality can be absorbed during times of abundance when there are many high-paying jobs, but it will destroy a society during times of scarcity when good jobs dry up and everyone wants on the dole.  ​  We can fight against it in two ways that I see:  1. Change the laws to assume everyone has the mentality and minimize waste due to greed. e.g. Put limits on unemployment benefits so people can't just leech on the system. 2. Fight the mentality through cultural and religious means where the individual grows their character to always do their best and not take from society unless it is required.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22514.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"p052ob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: collecting unemployment and bypassing underpaid jobs is a reasonable thing that shouldn\u2019t be looked down upon. From my understanding, unemployment exists to prevent a tidal wave of job loss and keep money flowing through our society.  But it\u2019s also an insurance policy. That people pay for.  If I had a 2021 Mercedes-Benz, it got totaled due to natural events that were covered in my contract it would be absolutely insane to say \u201cNo, don\u2019t pay me. I found an 81 Honda I can use. I\u2019m good.\u201d I would claim every penny that I signed up for.  There\u2019s nothing wrong in my mind of using all your benefit until you get a job in the same league as the one you lost. But I hear all the time that those people are lazy and \u201cdon\u2019t want to work\u201d. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h859q40","c_root_id_B":"h84abh6","created_at_utc_A":1628407264,"created_at_utc_B":1628384634,"score_A":12,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The mentality of sucking out all benefits possible before doing what must be done is a greedy mentality that will drain society. It is a mentality we should fight against.  This greedy mentality can be absorbed during times of abundance when there are many high-paying jobs, but it will destroy a society during times of scarcity when good jobs dry up and everyone wants on the dole.  ​  We can fight against it in two ways that I see:  1. Change the laws to assume everyone has the mentality and minimize waste due to greed. e.g. Put limits on unemployment benefits so people can't just leech on the system. 2. Fight the mentality through cultural and religious means where the individual grows their character to always do their best and not take from society unless it is required.","human_ref_B":"But in your analogy, *you* paid insurance. With unemployment, *we* pay it - that's the difference. So if you stay on benefits that other people are paying for while you look for a job in the same league as the one you lost, people are eventually going to start asking you questions like, \"Why can't you get a job in the meantime and quit when you find a better position?\" or \"Why did you get fired from your good job in the first place?\" or \"what happens if everyone on benefits thinks like this?\" and so on.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22630.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"p052ob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: collecting unemployment and bypassing underpaid jobs is a reasonable thing that shouldn\u2019t be looked down upon. From my understanding, unemployment exists to prevent a tidal wave of job loss and keep money flowing through our society.  But it\u2019s also an insurance policy. That people pay for.  If I had a 2021 Mercedes-Benz, it got totaled due to natural events that were covered in my contract it would be absolutely insane to say \u201cNo, don\u2019t pay me. I found an 81 Honda I can use. I\u2019m good.\u201d I would claim every penny that I signed up for.  There\u2019s nothing wrong in my mind of using all your benefit until you get a job in the same league as the one you lost. But I hear all the time that those people are lazy and \u201cdon\u2019t want to work\u201d. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h84ajcc","c_root_id_B":"h85l3ai","created_at_utc_A":1628384750,"created_at_utc_B":1628417482,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think you're arguing against the strawman position set up by the other side of the debate. it's easy to paint a group of people as \"lazy\" when they aren't. For unemployment benefits, occasionally that comes with a racial or ethnic component.   But I think the argument from the other side is that the people who are sitting out are either making more money by not working because of pandemic benefits, or would have been working for minimum wage anyway (meaning their replacement jobs couldn't be underpaid).","human_ref_B":"Employees don\u2019t pay unemployment tax, employers do, and they pay reimbursements to cover shortfalls.  And if you are collecting unemployment you are required to look for work, but not to take a job that pays significantly less than what you made. Over time the reduction in pay that you would have to take increases, as they try to get you off of the benefit.  Because it isn\u2019t insurance, it is something employers pay into and want to avoid using.   How do you imagine the money would keep coming in if people just chose not to work?  Let me put it another way, your insurance company offers you a renal while your car is being repaired, but for a limited time. Why? Because it costs them money, and that money is collected in payments from everyone, not just you. If you wreck your 2021 Mercedes they are going to fix it or replace it, and they are probably already taking  a loss with you. Add in a rental, but for an indefinite amount of time, and you might not be in as big a hurry to get your car fixed.  Now you are driving a similar car to what is being repaired \/ replaced, and you aren\u2019t putting miles on your own car and hurting it\u2019s value.  Can you see where the abuse comes into play? You aren\u2019t spending your money in extending the rental, you are spending a whole lot of other people\u2019s money. And that act causes everyone\u2019s rates to go up.  Now consider it isn\u2019t just you, everyone who wrecks their car has an unlimited rental car and many have the same idea.  Do you think car rental prices stay the same? They don\u2019t, they would need a lot more cars to cover the need. Do you think auto insurance would cost the same? Nope, they would have to predict what the new rental car cost is per insured driver and divide the new higher cost amongst all of the insured drivers.  And maybe you don\u2019t care when your car is wrecked, at that time you are getting over on the man, other people are paying for your rental. But now your insurance costs lot more, and you won\u2019t have a wrecked car all the time. Next week or next month you will be in your car, and see me in a rental, and now you might realize that you are now paying for me to get over, and not over the man, but over you.   So back to unemployment. Do you imagine compensation would or could stay the same if unemployment costs went up drastically for employers? No, the money doesn\u2019t fall out of a tree. So the people who have jobs would make less to cover this choosing unemployment.  And if the federal government gets involved, now we are talking about tax dollars. So with what they are doing right now in extending unemployment benefits at the federal level, that money given to the unemployed is paid for by all of us through taxes. More specifically it is paid for with borrowing, selling bonds, and then we pay interest on the debt. (Right now we pay about $403 billion a year on our current debt)  So we borrow and pay interest so people can stay at home? If that were to continue long term, how would it be funded? Productive people generate our tax revenue, and every dollar spent from taxes is taken from a taxpayer. (There is overhead, so we actually tax more than the dollar to pay the dollar, just look at the breakdowns of the stimulus deals, in dollars taxed vs dollars paid)   So if we extended unemployment indefinitely, well great, pay will go up for a lot of low paid employees, or automation will replace many low paid jobs. But not all businesses can afford that, and if they were made to wave a magic wand and do it no matter what, prices would have to go up to cover the difference, and or fewer people would be hired. Payroll is not covered by hopes and dreams, and most businesses are close to break even.  Which gives you inflation, where the higher wage people are now making buys less.  And then every person who chooses unemployment adds to the tax burden, meaning employers pay more in tax and less to us, the government takes in more tax (or borrows) to keep up their end, and there is ever less money after higher taxes, lower pay, and with inflation.   The point being employees don\u2019t and cannot be made to pay unemployment insurance or reimbursements. The unemployed are not receiving money that they contributed to.  And most importantly, if you provide incentive for something you tend to see it more, and this is providing incentive to be less productive or not productive at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32732.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"p052ob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: collecting unemployment and bypassing underpaid jobs is a reasonable thing that shouldn\u2019t be looked down upon. From my understanding, unemployment exists to prevent a tidal wave of job loss and keep money flowing through our society.  But it\u2019s also an insurance policy. That people pay for.  If I had a 2021 Mercedes-Benz, it got totaled due to natural events that were covered in my contract it would be absolutely insane to say \u201cNo, don\u2019t pay me. I found an 81 Honda I can use. I\u2019m good.\u201d I would claim every penny that I signed up for.  There\u2019s nothing wrong in my mind of using all your benefit until you get a job in the same league as the one you lost. But I hear all the time that those people are lazy and \u201cdon\u2019t want to work\u201d. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h85aw4g","c_root_id_B":"h85l3ai","created_at_utc_A":1628408266,"created_at_utc_B":1628417482,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"In your scenario sure it's fine not to accept the Honda at first. But if 6 months\/a year goes by you really should take the Honda at that point. Everyone has setbacks.","human_ref_B":"Employees don\u2019t pay unemployment tax, employers do, and they pay reimbursements to cover shortfalls.  And if you are collecting unemployment you are required to look for work, but not to take a job that pays significantly less than what you made. Over time the reduction in pay that you would have to take increases, as they try to get you off of the benefit.  Because it isn\u2019t insurance, it is something employers pay into and want to avoid using.   How do you imagine the money would keep coming in if people just chose not to work?  Let me put it another way, your insurance company offers you a renal while your car is being repaired, but for a limited time. Why? Because it costs them money, and that money is collected in payments from everyone, not just you. If you wreck your 2021 Mercedes they are going to fix it or replace it, and they are probably already taking  a loss with you. Add in a rental, but for an indefinite amount of time, and you might not be in as big a hurry to get your car fixed.  Now you are driving a similar car to what is being repaired \/ replaced, and you aren\u2019t putting miles on your own car and hurting it\u2019s value.  Can you see where the abuse comes into play? You aren\u2019t spending your money in extending the rental, you are spending a whole lot of other people\u2019s money. And that act causes everyone\u2019s rates to go up.  Now consider it isn\u2019t just you, everyone who wrecks their car has an unlimited rental car and many have the same idea.  Do you think car rental prices stay the same? They don\u2019t, they would need a lot more cars to cover the need. Do you think auto insurance would cost the same? Nope, they would have to predict what the new rental car cost is per insured driver and divide the new higher cost amongst all of the insured drivers.  And maybe you don\u2019t care when your car is wrecked, at that time you are getting over on the man, other people are paying for your rental. But now your insurance costs lot more, and you won\u2019t have a wrecked car all the time. Next week or next month you will be in your car, and see me in a rental, and now you might realize that you are now paying for me to get over, and not over the man, but over you.   So back to unemployment. Do you imagine compensation would or could stay the same if unemployment costs went up drastically for employers? No, the money doesn\u2019t fall out of a tree. So the people who have jobs would make less to cover this choosing unemployment.  And if the federal government gets involved, now we are talking about tax dollars. So with what they are doing right now in extending unemployment benefits at the federal level, that money given to the unemployed is paid for by all of us through taxes. More specifically it is paid for with borrowing, selling bonds, and then we pay interest on the debt. (Right now we pay about $403 billion a year on our current debt)  So we borrow and pay interest so people can stay at home? If that were to continue long term, how would it be funded? Productive people generate our tax revenue, and every dollar spent from taxes is taken from a taxpayer. (There is overhead, so we actually tax more than the dollar to pay the dollar, just look at the breakdowns of the stimulus deals, in dollars taxed vs dollars paid)   So if we extended unemployment indefinitely, well great, pay will go up for a lot of low paid employees, or automation will replace many low paid jobs. But not all businesses can afford that, and if they were made to wave a magic wand and do it no matter what, prices would have to go up to cover the difference, and or fewer people would be hired. Payroll is not covered by hopes and dreams, and most businesses are close to break even.  Which gives you inflation, where the higher wage people are now making buys less.  And then every person who chooses unemployment adds to the tax burden, meaning employers pay more in tax and less to us, the government takes in more tax (or borrows) to keep up their end, and there is ever less money after higher taxes, lower pay, and with inflation.   The point being employees don\u2019t and cannot be made to pay unemployment insurance or reimbursements. The unemployed are not receiving money that they contributed to.  And most importantly, if you provide incentive for something you tend to see it more, and this is providing incentive to be less productive or not productive at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9216.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"p052ob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: collecting unemployment and bypassing underpaid jobs is a reasonable thing that shouldn\u2019t be looked down upon. From my understanding, unemployment exists to prevent a tidal wave of job loss and keep money flowing through our society.  But it\u2019s also an insurance policy. That people pay for.  If I had a 2021 Mercedes-Benz, it got totaled due to natural events that were covered in my contract it would be absolutely insane to say \u201cNo, don\u2019t pay me. I found an 81 Honda I can use. I\u2019m good.\u201d I would claim every penny that I signed up for.  There\u2019s nothing wrong in my mind of using all your benefit until you get a job in the same league as the one you lost. But I hear all the time that those people are lazy and \u201cdon\u2019t want to work\u201d. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h85l3ai","c_root_id_B":"h84abh6","created_at_utc_A":1628417482,"created_at_utc_B":1628384634,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Employees don\u2019t pay unemployment tax, employers do, and they pay reimbursements to cover shortfalls.  And if you are collecting unemployment you are required to look for work, but not to take a job that pays significantly less than what you made. Over time the reduction in pay that you would have to take increases, as they try to get you off of the benefit.  Because it isn\u2019t insurance, it is something employers pay into and want to avoid using.   How do you imagine the money would keep coming in if people just chose not to work?  Let me put it another way, your insurance company offers you a renal while your car is being repaired, but for a limited time. Why? Because it costs them money, and that money is collected in payments from everyone, not just you. If you wreck your 2021 Mercedes they are going to fix it or replace it, and they are probably already taking  a loss with you. Add in a rental, but for an indefinite amount of time, and you might not be in as big a hurry to get your car fixed.  Now you are driving a similar car to what is being repaired \/ replaced, and you aren\u2019t putting miles on your own car and hurting it\u2019s value.  Can you see where the abuse comes into play? You aren\u2019t spending your money in extending the rental, you are spending a whole lot of other people\u2019s money. And that act causes everyone\u2019s rates to go up.  Now consider it isn\u2019t just you, everyone who wrecks their car has an unlimited rental car and many have the same idea.  Do you think car rental prices stay the same? They don\u2019t, they would need a lot more cars to cover the need. Do you think auto insurance would cost the same? Nope, they would have to predict what the new rental car cost is per insured driver and divide the new higher cost amongst all of the insured drivers.  And maybe you don\u2019t care when your car is wrecked, at that time you are getting over on the man, other people are paying for your rental. But now your insurance costs lot more, and you won\u2019t have a wrecked car all the time. Next week or next month you will be in your car, and see me in a rental, and now you might realize that you are now paying for me to get over, and not over the man, but over you.   So back to unemployment. Do you imagine compensation would or could stay the same if unemployment costs went up drastically for employers? No, the money doesn\u2019t fall out of a tree. So the people who have jobs would make less to cover this choosing unemployment.  And if the federal government gets involved, now we are talking about tax dollars. So with what they are doing right now in extending unemployment benefits at the federal level, that money given to the unemployed is paid for by all of us through taxes. More specifically it is paid for with borrowing, selling bonds, and then we pay interest on the debt. (Right now we pay about $403 billion a year on our current debt)  So we borrow and pay interest so people can stay at home? If that were to continue long term, how would it be funded? Productive people generate our tax revenue, and every dollar spent from taxes is taken from a taxpayer. (There is overhead, so we actually tax more than the dollar to pay the dollar, just look at the breakdowns of the stimulus deals, in dollars taxed vs dollars paid)   So if we extended unemployment indefinitely, well great, pay will go up for a lot of low paid employees, or automation will replace many low paid jobs. But not all businesses can afford that, and if they were made to wave a magic wand and do it no matter what, prices would have to go up to cover the difference, and or fewer people would be hired. Payroll is not covered by hopes and dreams, and most businesses are close to break even.  Which gives you inflation, where the higher wage people are now making buys less.  And then every person who chooses unemployment adds to the tax burden, meaning employers pay more in tax and less to us, the government takes in more tax (or borrows) to keep up their end, and there is ever less money after higher taxes, lower pay, and with inflation.   The point being employees don\u2019t and cannot be made to pay unemployment insurance or reimbursements. The unemployed are not receiving money that they contributed to.  And most importantly, if you provide incentive for something you tend to see it more, and this is providing incentive to be less productive or not productive at all.","human_ref_B":"But in your analogy, *you* paid insurance. With unemployment, *we* pay it - that's the difference. So if you stay on benefits that other people are paying for while you look for a job in the same league as the one you lost, people are eventually going to start asking you questions like, \"Why can't you get a job in the meantime and quit when you find a better position?\" or \"Why did you get fired from your good job in the first place?\" or \"what happens if everyone on benefits thinks like this?\" and so on.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32848.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"p052ob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: collecting unemployment and bypassing underpaid jobs is a reasonable thing that shouldn\u2019t be looked down upon. From my understanding, unemployment exists to prevent a tidal wave of job loss and keep money flowing through our society.  But it\u2019s also an insurance policy. That people pay for.  If I had a 2021 Mercedes-Benz, it got totaled due to natural events that were covered in my contract it would be absolutely insane to say \u201cNo, don\u2019t pay me. I found an 81 Honda I can use. I\u2019m good.\u201d I would claim every penny that I signed up for.  There\u2019s nothing wrong in my mind of using all your benefit until you get a job in the same league as the one you lost. But I hear all the time that those people are lazy and \u201cdon\u2019t want to work\u201d. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h84abh6","c_root_id_B":"h84ajcc","created_at_utc_A":1628384634,"created_at_utc_B":1628384750,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"But in your analogy, *you* paid insurance. With unemployment, *we* pay it - that's the difference. So if you stay on benefits that other people are paying for while you look for a job in the same league as the one you lost, people are eventually going to start asking you questions like, \"Why can't you get a job in the meantime and quit when you find a better position?\" or \"Why did you get fired from your good job in the first place?\" or \"what happens if everyone on benefits thinks like this?\" and so on.","human_ref_B":"I think you're arguing against the strawman position set up by the other side of the debate. it's easy to paint a group of people as \"lazy\" when they aren't. For unemployment benefits, occasionally that comes with a racial or ethnic component.   But I think the argument from the other side is that the people who are sitting out are either making more money by not working because of pandemic benefits, or would have been working for minimum wage anyway (meaning their replacement jobs couldn't be underpaid).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":116.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2whgy","c_root_id_B":"ea26aqf","created_at_utc_A":1542685782,"created_at_utc_B":1542663685,"score_A":1036,"score_B":644,"human_ref_A":"I had a comedian friend tell me once that you can joke about anything, as long as you're not joking about *victims*. A rape joke could theoretically be funny. Joking about someone being raped or who has been raped? Not funny at all, because you're essentially making light of someone's suffering that they likely don't take lightly at all. Of course we're all different and there are exceptions.  For example Pete Davidson (SNL) used to tell a joke about how he didn't care when his mother told him his firefighter father died in 9\/11 because he was seven and she got him a PS3 right after. I think that's a funny concept, because he's joking about his *own* tragedy. Not someone else's. In that context I think it's perfectly fine. However, if you or I were to joke about his father passing, that would likely upset him because we're trivializing someone else's suffering to get laughs about a situation that we didn't experience the pain of firsthand.","human_ref_B":"I'm not really sure about your premise here.  Doesn't it boil down to: \"it's ok to joke when it's ok to joke, but it's not ok when it's not ok.\"  That seems more of a truism than a view.  What do you think could change your mind?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22097.0,"score_ratio":1.6086956522}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea26oy0","c_root_id_B":"ea2whgy","created_at_utc_A":1542663972,"created_at_utc_B":1542685782,"score_A":162,"score_B":1036,"human_ref_A":"Well, if done wrong, it can trivialize the suffering of people. Even if they are not in the particular conversation, it could reinforce beliefs which trivialize suffering. However, I don't think it's a big enough deal to justify going around policing jokes, which probably just makes these problems even worse.","human_ref_B":"I had a comedian friend tell me once that you can joke about anything, as long as you're not joking about *victims*. A rape joke could theoretically be funny. Joking about someone being raped or who has been raped? Not funny at all, because you're essentially making light of someone's suffering that they likely don't take lightly at all. Of course we're all different and there are exceptions.  For example Pete Davidson (SNL) used to tell a joke about how he didn't care when his mother told him his firefighter father died in 9\/11 because he was seven and she got him a PS3 right after. I think that's a funny concept, because he's joking about his *own* tragedy. Not someone else's. In that context I think it's perfectly fine. However, if you or I were to joke about his father passing, that would likely upset him because we're trivializing someone else's suffering to get laughs about a situation that we didn't experience the pain of firsthand.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21810.0,"score_ratio":6.3950617284}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2whgy","c_root_id_B":"ea2j3i9","created_at_utc_A":1542685782,"created_at_utc_B":1542674302,"score_A":1036,"score_B":126,"human_ref_A":"I had a comedian friend tell me once that you can joke about anything, as long as you're not joking about *victims*. A rape joke could theoretically be funny. Joking about someone being raped or who has been raped? Not funny at all, because you're essentially making light of someone's suffering that they likely don't take lightly at all. Of course we're all different and there are exceptions.  For example Pete Davidson (SNL) used to tell a joke about how he didn't care when his mother told him his firefighter father died in 9\/11 because he was seven and she got him a PS3 right after. I think that's a funny concept, because he's joking about his *own* tragedy. Not someone else's. In that context I think it's perfectly fine. However, if you or I were to joke about his father passing, that would likely upset him because we're trivializing someone else's suffering to get laughs about a situation that we didn't experience the pain of firsthand.","human_ref_B":"I generally agree with you. However the devil is in the details. It's all about the when and then how. The when is the context, and the how is the delivery.   The problem is that most people either don't know when the appropriate context is or lack the finer comedic touches for the delivery.  So I don't think it's so much that certain topics should be off limit for comedy. It's that people should generally stay away from sensitive topics for jokes, because the joke is likely to fail, and the the stakes for potentially offending someone is higher with sensitive topics.  An aside: professional comedians generally get away with make jokes about sensitive topics more than the average person, because of the when and the how. They have years of experience honing their craft of comedy. Also they have spent hours perfecting the joke. Furthermore, when people pay to go to a comedy show, they are an captive audience and are more likely to find the jokes funny in that environment (the correct context).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11480.0,"score_ratio":8.2222222222}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2ob8n","c_root_id_B":"ea2whgy","created_at_utc_A":1542678790,"created_at_utc_B":1542685782,"score_A":24,"score_B":1036,"human_ref_A":"How do you know whether you have the right audience\/context, though? Like, not all rape victims want everyone to know that they are rape victims. So if you tell a rape joke that really hurts them, they have to choose between pretending they're okay, outing themselves as a victim in order for you to view their offense as legitimate, or objecting without outing themselves and being dismissed by you as one of those illegitimately offended parties.","human_ref_B":"I had a comedian friend tell me once that you can joke about anything, as long as you're not joking about *victims*. A rape joke could theoretically be funny. Joking about someone being raped or who has been raped? Not funny at all, because you're essentially making light of someone's suffering that they likely don't take lightly at all. Of course we're all different and there are exceptions.  For example Pete Davidson (SNL) used to tell a joke about how he didn't care when his mother told him his firefighter father died in 9\/11 because he was seven and she got him a PS3 right after. I think that's a funny concept, because he's joking about his *own* tragedy. Not someone else's. In that context I think it's perfectly fine. However, if you or I were to joke about his father passing, that would likely upset him because we're trivializing someone else's suffering to get laughs about a situation that we didn't experience the pain of firsthand.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6992.0,"score_ratio":43.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea27ju2","c_root_id_B":"ea2whgy","created_at_utc_A":1542664629,"created_at_utc_B":1542685782,"score_A":23,"score_B":1036,"human_ref_A":">Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.  If this was true to all topics then you would expect the people who have been through these terrible events to be the ones making the jokes. I don't see how people who have never experienced the thing their joking abould need to cope.    Generally when people say don't joke about a topic, they are assuming the joke is promoting the worng act. Like jokes about how to kill babies or minorities. These don't help people cope they are really just trying to be offensive.  You may be able to argue there is an appropriate time to make them, but I cannot see why we have a moral obligation to make said jokes like your post claims.","human_ref_B":"I had a comedian friend tell me once that you can joke about anything, as long as you're not joking about *victims*. A rape joke could theoretically be funny. Joking about someone being raped or who has been raped? Not funny at all, because you're essentially making light of someone's suffering that they likely don't take lightly at all. Of course we're all different and there are exceptions.  For example Pete Davidson (SNL) used to tell a joke about how he didn't care when his mother told him his firefighter father died in 9\/11 because he was seven and she got him a PS3 right after. I think that's a funny concept, because he's joking about his *own* tragedy. Not someone else's. In that context I think it's perfectly fine. However, if you or I were to joke about his father passing, that would likely upset him because we're trivializing someone else's suffering to get laughs about a situation that we didn't experience the pain of firsthand.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21153.0,"score_ratio":45.0434782609}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2rpzy","c_root_id_B":"ea2whgy","created_at_utc_A":1542681649,"created_at_utc_B":1542685782,"score_A":21,"score_B":1036,"human_ref_A":"Life has changed my view on this one.    Everything used to be fair game for me to joke about.  But then I witnessed tragedy, I found love, I became a parent, and I changed my opinion.    Now I just don\u2019t see the point in doing anything that is going to cause another person to feel badly.    It\u2019s not like I\u2019ve lost my sense of humor.  I still enjoy all of the raunchy shit that I used to rant about, but now I just don\u2019t want to put someone else in a position that could cause them distress.","human_ref_B":"I had a comedian friend tell me once that you can joke about anything, as long as you're not joking about *victims*. A rape joke could theoretically be funny. Joking about someone being raped or who has been raped? Not funny at all, because you're essentially making light of someone's suffering that they likely don't take lightly at all. Of course we're all different and there are exceptions.  For example Pete Davidson (SNL) used to tell a joke about how he didn't care when his mother told him his firefighter father died in 9\/11 because he was seven and she got him a PS3 right after. I think that's a funny concept, because he's joking about his *own* tragedy. Not someone else's. In that context I think it's perfectly fine. However, if you or I were to joke about his father passing, that would likely upset him because we're trivializing someone else's suffering to get laughs about a situation that we didn't experience the pain of firsthand.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4133.0,"score_ratio":49.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2whgy","c_root_id_B":"ea2dw54","created_at_utc_A":1542685782,"created_at_utc_B":1542669825,"score_A":1036,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I had a comedian friend tell me once that you can joke about anything, as long as you're not joking about *victims*. A rape joke could theoretically be funny. Joking about someone being raped or who has been raped? Not funny at all, because you're essentially making light of someone's suffering that they likely don't take lightly at all. Of course we're all different and there are exceptions.  For example Pete Davidson (SNL) used to tell a joke about how he didn't care when his mother told him his firefighter father died in 9\/11 because he was seven and she got him a PS3 right after. I think that's a funny concept, because he's joking about his *own* tragedy. Not someone else's. In that context I think it's perfectly fine. However, if you or I were to joke about his father passing, that would likely upset him because we're trivializing someone else's suffering to get laughs about a situation that we didn't experience the pain of firsthand.","human_ref_B":">For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more.  So here's the thing. If a jewish person wants to make a holocaust joke? Sure. That's fine. If someone who legitimately thinks the holocause was exaggerated wants to... there probably isn't a context that's going to make that ok? I feel that who are you is inherently part of the joke you're telling. Your identity as the teller of the joke is the framing device the joke is conveyed in and therefore creates some of that context. So while there may be no specific topic that's off limits, there may be some topics that are off limits to certain people. A guy who has a history of sexually harassing women making a joke about some woman overreacting to an innocent comment takes on a sinister and inappropriate tone even if the woman in question is 100% overreacting to something 100% innocent and basically anyone else making that joke would be fine.   Generally, victims of something and ingroup members can almost always make jokes about that thing\/group. Minorities can make darkly comedic jokes about the way cops treat minorities. LGBT people can make jokes about how LGBT people are. But some of those exact same jokes, coming from a white cop or a straight conservative catholic might never be ok. Victimizers and members of the group from which most of the victimizers are seen to belong usually can't. Everyone else is context dependent.  But also, the important thing is that when you tell a risky joke, you are accepting the possibility of it going badly. If you know some people are going to be offended by the topic, but choose to push through, you don't get to say \"it was just a joke!\" because you knew the risk. It's a risk you can take, but the people getting upset aren't the bad guy because you gambled on their sensibilities without consulting them and lost.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15957.0,"score_ratio":79.6923076923}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2ohsp","c_root_id_B":"ea2whgy","created_at_utc_A":1542678947,"created_at_utc_B":1542685782,"score_A":11,"score_B":1036,"human_ref_A":"The devil is in the details. Regardless of whether a holocaust victim or a Jewish person is present, you can tell a funny holocaust joke that uses the unique situational stuff of the holocaust. Or you can still tell a crass tasteless \"edgelord\" kinda joke.   For example, you could tell a deeply racist and offensive joke and pass it off as a \"joke\" but also look around to see who is laughing the most. Those are the closet racists or supremacists and you then make a beeline for them and form deeper bonds with them and form your racist clique.  A lot of people use humor as a code to get insights into the true nature of people. They also use humor as a veil, an excuse, to do offensive things. Their fallback answer and strategy being that \"these liberals are just too thin skinned and can't take a joke\".  While many times it is a genuine dilemma, like see Bill Burr. But many many other times, humor is just a thinly veiled excuse to just exhibit boorish behavior and then laugh it off when others object. Because you can say everyone was drunk or trying to be funny or shooting the gas or whatever.  Nobody's dumb. Everyone sees through the BS.","human_ref_B":"I had a comedian friend tell me once that you can joke about anything, as long as you're not joking about *victims*. A rape joke could theoretically be funny. Joking about someone being raped or who has been raped? Not funny at all, because you're essentially making light of someone's suffering that they likely don't take lightly at all. Of course we're all different and there are exceptions.  For example Pete Davidson (SNL) used to tell a joke about how he didn't care when his mother told him his firefighter father died in 9\/11 because he was seven and she got him a PS3 right after. I think that's a funny concept, because he's joking about his *own* tragedy. Not someone else's. In that context I think it's perfectly fine. However, if you or I were to joke about his father passing, that would likely upset him because we're trivializing someone else's suffering to get laughs about a situation that we didn't experience the pain of firsthand.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6835.0,"score_ratio":94.1818181818}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea29gqw","c_root_id_B":"ea2whgy","created_at_utc_A":1542666120,"created_at_utc_B":1542685782,"score_A":8,"score_B":1036,"human_ref_A":"One of the core rules of comedy: nothing is off-limits as long as it's funnier than it is offensive.","human_ref_B":"I had a comedian friend tell me once that you can joke about anything, as long as you're not joking about *victims*. A rape joke could theoretically be funny. Joking about someone being raped or who has been raped? Not funny at all, because you're essentially making light of someone's suffering that they likely don't take lightly at all. Of course we're all different and there are exceptions.  For example Pete Davidson (SNL) used to tell a joke about how he didn't care when his mother told him his firefighter father died in 9\/11 because he was seven and she got him a PS3 right after. I think that's a funny concept, because he's joking about his *own* tragedy. Not someone else's. In that context I think it's perfectly fine. However, if you or I were to joke about his father passing, that would likely upset him because we're trivializing someone else's suffering to get laughs about a situation that we didn't experience the pain of firsthand.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19662.0,"score_ratio":129.5}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea27ju2","c_root_id_B":"ea2j3i9","created_at_utc_A":1542664629,"created_at_utc_B":1542674302,"score_A":23,"score_B":126,"human_ref_A":">Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.  If this was true to all topics then you would expect the people who have been through these terrible events to be the ones making the jokes. I don't see how people who have never experienced the thing their joking abould need to cope.    Generally when people say don't joke about a topic, they are assuming the joke is promoting the worng act. Like jokes about how to kill babies or minorities. These don't help people cope they are really just trying to be offensive.  You may be able to argue there is an appropriate time to make them, but I cannot see why we have a moral obligation to make said jokes like your post claims.","human_ref_B":"I generally agree with you. However the devil is in the details. It's all about the when and then how. The when is the context, and the how is the delivery.   The problem is that most people either don't know when the appropriate context is or lack the finer comedic touches for the delivery.  So I don't think it's so much that certain topics should be off limit for comedy. It's that people should generally stay away from sensitive topics for jokes, because the joke is likely to fail, and the the stakes for potentially offending someone is higher with sensitive topics.  An aside: professional comedians generally get away with make jokes about sensitive topics more than the average person, because of the when and the how. They have years of experience honing their craft of comedy. Also they have spent hours perfecting the joke. Furthermore, when people pay to go to a comedy show, they are an captive audience and are more likely to find the jokes funny in that environment (the correct context).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9673.0,"score_ratio":5.4782608696}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2dw54","c_root_id_B":"ea2j3i9","created_at_utc_A":1542669825,"created_at_utc_B":1542674302,"score_A":13,"score_B":126,"human_ref_A":">For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more.  So here's the thing. If a jewish person wants to make a holocaust joke? Sure. That's fine. If someone who legitimately thinks the holocause was exaggerated wants to... there probably isn't a context that's going to make that ok? I feel that who are you is inherently part of the joke you're telling. Your identity as the teller of the joke is the framing device the joke is conveyed in and therefore creates some of that context. So while there may be no specific topic that's off limits, there may be some topics that are off limits to certain people. A guy who has a history of sexually harassing women making a joke about some woman overreacting to an innocent comment takes on a sinister and inappropriate tone even if the woman in question is 100% overreacting to something 100% innocent and basically anyone else making that joke would be fine.   Generally, victims of something and ingroup members can almost always make jokes about that thing\/group. Minorities can make darkly comedic jokes about the way cops treat minorities. LGBT people can make jokes about how LGBT people are. But some of those exact same jokes, coming from a white cop or a straight conservative catholic might never be ok. Victimizers and members of the group from which most of the victimizers are seen to belong usually can't. Everyone else is context dependent.  But also, the important thing is that when you tell a risky joke, you are accepting the possibility of it going badly. If you know some people are going to be offended by the topic, but choose to push through, you don't get to say \"it was just a joke!\" because you knew the risk. It's a risk you can take, but the people getting upset aren't the bad guy because you gambled on their sensibilities without consulting them and lost.","human_ref_B":"I generally agree with you. However the devil is in the details. It's all about the when and then how. The when is the context, and the how is the delivery.   The problem is that most people either don't know when the appropriate context is or lack the finer comedic touches for the delivery.  So I don't think it's so much that certain topics should be off limit for comedy. It's that people should generally stay away from sensitive topics for jokes, because the joke is likely to fail, and the the stakes for potentially offending someone is higher with sensitive topics.  An aside: professional comedians generally get away with make jokes about sensitive topics more than the average person, because of the when and the how. They have years of experience honing their craft of comedy. Also they have spent hours perfecting the joke. Furthermore, when people pay to go to a comedy show, they are an captive audience and are more likely to find the jokes funny in that environment (the correct context).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4477.0,"score_ratio":9.6923076923}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2j3i9","c_root_id_B":"ea29gqw","created_at_utc_A":1542674302,"created_at_utc_B":1542666120,"score_A":126,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I generally agree with you. However the devil is in the details. It's all about the when and then how. The when is the context, and the how is the delivery.   The problem is that most people either don't know when the appropriate context is or lack the finer comedic touches for the delivery.  So I don't think it's so much that certain topics should be off limit for comedy. It's that people should generally stay away from sensitive topics for jokes, because the joke is likely to fail, and the the stakes for potentially offending someone is higher with sensitive topics.  An aside: professional comedians generally get away with make jokes about sensitive topics more than the average person, because of the when and the how. They have years of experience honing their craft of comedy. Also they have spent hours perfecting the joke. Furthermore, when people pay to go to a comedy show, they are an captive audience and are more likely to find the jokes funny in that environment (the correct context).","human_ref_B":"One of the core rules of comedy: nothing is off-limits as long as it's funnier than it is offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8182.0,"score_ratio":15.75}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2ob8n","c_root_id_B":"ea2yby4","created_at_utc_A":1542678790,"created_at_utc_B":1542687435,"score_A":24,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"How do you know whether you have the right audience\/context, though? Like, not all rape victims want everyone to know that they are rape victims. So if you tell a rape joke that really hurts them, they have to choose between pretending they're okay, outing themselves as a victim in order for you to view their offense as legitimate, or objecting without outing themselves and being dismissed by you as one of those illegitimately offended parties.","human_ref_B":"\"In the right context\" sort of defeats your CMV.  Everything is okay in the right context.  Even terribly abominable actions could be justified by some appeal to God or the greater good.  I mean, the phrase \"in the right context\" implies the usage is correct.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8645.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2yby4","c_root_id_B":"ea27ju2","created_at_utc_A":1542687435,"created_at_utc_B":1542664629,"score_A":56,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"\"In the right context\" sort of defeats your CMV.  Everything is okay in the right context.  Even terribly abominable actions could be justified by some appeal to God or the greater good.  I mean, the phrase \"in the right context\" implies the usage is correct.","human_ref_B":">Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.  If this was true to all topics then you would expect the people who have been through these terrible events to be the ones making the jokes. I don't see how people who have never experienced the thing their joking abould need to cope.    Generally when people say don't joke about a topic, they are assuming the joke is promoting the worng act. Like jokes about how to kill babies or minorities. These don't help people cope they are really just trying to be offensive.  You may be able to argue there is an appropriate time to make them, but I cannot see why we have a moral obligation to make said jokes like your post claims.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22806.0,"score_ratio":2.4347826087}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2yby4","c_root_id_B":"ea2rpzy","created_at_utc_A":1542687435,"created_at_utc_B":1542681649,"score_A":56,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"\"In the right context\" sort of defeats your CMV.  Everything is okay in the right context.  Even terribly abominable actions could be justified by some appeal to God or the greater good.  I mean, the phrase \"in the right context\" implies the usage is correct.","human_ref_B":"Life has changed my view on this one.    Everything used to be fair game for me to joke about.  But then I witnessed tragedy, I found love, I became a parent, and I changed my opinion.    Now I just don\u2019t see the point in doing anything that is going to cause another person to feel badly.    It\u2019s not like I\u2019ve lost my sense of humor.  I still enjoy all of the raunchy shit that I used to rant about, but now I just don\u2019t want to put someone else in a position that could cause them distress.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5786.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2wrtb","c_root_id_B":"ea2yby4","created_at_utc_A":1542686021,"created_at_utc_B":1542687435,"score_A":15,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"So the main problem I see with it is that you dont know everything about a person. Only one person I know personally knows I have been raped. Yet a lot of people make rape jokes. I usually need to leave the room and go sit by myself for a long time after hearing them. It could be the same with miscarriages and other personal tradgedies\/traumatic events. If you are with close friends and you know for sure they dont have issues with whatever you are joking about, fine, do it, but just try to remember that people dont share everything that happens to them.","human_ref_B":"\"In the right context\" sort of defeats your CMV.  Everything is okay in the right context.  Even terribly abominable actions could be justified by some appeal to God or the greater good.  I mean, the phrase \"in the right context\" implies the usage is correct.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1414.0,"score_ratio":3.7333333333}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2yby4","c_root_id_B":"ea2dw54","created_at_utc_A":1542687435,"created_at_utc_B":1542669825,"score_A":56,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"\"In the right context\" sort of defeats your CMV.  Everything is okay in the right context.  Even terribly abominable actions could be justified by some appeal to God or the greater good.  I mean, the phrase \"in the right context\" implies the usage is correct.","human_ref_B":">For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more.  So here's the thing. If a jewish person wants to make a holocaust joke? Sure. That's fine. If someone who legitimately thinks the holocause was exaggerated wants to... there probably isn't a context that's going to make that ok? I feel that who are you is inherently part of the joke you're telling. Your identity as the teller of the joke is the framing device the joke is conveyed in and therefore creates some of that context. So while there may be no specific topic that's off limits, there may be some topics that are off limits to certain people. A guy who has a history of sexually harassing women making a joke about some woman overreacting to an innocent comment takes on a sinister and inappropriate tone even if the woman in question is 100% overreacting to something 100% innocent and basically anyone else making that joke would be fine.   Generally, victims of something and ingroup members can almost always make jokes about that thing\/group. Minorities can make darkly comedic jokes about the way cops treat minorities. LGBT people can make jokes about how LGBT people are. But some of those exact same jokes, coming from a white cop or a straight conservative catholic might never be ok. Victimizers and members of the group from which most of the victimizers are seen to belong usually can't. Everyone else is context dependent.  But also, the important thing is that when you tell a risky joke, you are accepting the possibility of it going badly. If you know some people are going to be offended by the topic, but choose to push through, you don't get to say \"it was just a joke!\" because you knew the risk. It's a risk you can take, but the people getting upset aren't the bad guy because you gambled on their sensibilities without consulting them and lost.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17610.0,"score_ratio":4.3076923077}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2yby4","c_root_id_B":"ea2ohsp","created_at_utc_A":1542687435,"created_at_utc_B":1542678947,"score_A":56,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"\"In the right context\" sort of defeats your CMV.  Everything is okay in the right context.  Even terribly abominable actions could be justified by some appeal to God or the greater good.  I mean, the phrase \"in the right context\" implies the usage is correct.","human_ref_B":"The devil is in the details. Regardless of whether a holocaust victim or a Jewish person is present, you can tell a funny holocaust joke that uses the unique situational stuff of the holocaust. Or you can still tell a crass tasteless \"edgelord\" kinda joke.   For example, you could tell a deeply racist and offensive joke and pass it off as a \"joke\" but also look around to see who is laughing the most. Those are the closet racists or supremacists and you then make a beeline for them and form deeper bonds with them and form your racist clique.  A lot of people use humor as a code to get insights into the true nature of people. They also use humor as a veil, an excuse, to do offensive things. Their fallback answer and strategy being that \"these liberals are just too thin skinned and can't take a joke\".  While many times it is a genuine dilemma, like see Bill Burr. But many many other times, humor is just a thinly veiled excuse to just exhibit boorish behavior and then laugh it off when others object. Because you can say everyone was drunk or trying to be funny or shooting the gas or whatever.  Nobody's dumb. Everyone sees through the BS.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8488.0,"score_ratio":5.0909090909}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2yby4","c_root_id_B":"ea29gqw","created_at_utc_A":1542687435,"created_at_utc_B":1542666120,"score_A":56,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"\"In the right context\" sort of defeats your CMV.  Everything is okay in the right context.  Even terribly abominable actions could be justified by some appeal to God or the greater good.  I mean, the phrase \"in the right context\" implies the usage is correct.","human_ref_B":"One of the core rules of comedy: nothing is off-limits as long as it's funnier than it is offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21315.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea27ju2","c_root_id_B":"ea2ob8n","created_at_utc_A":1542664629,"created_at_utc_B":1542678790,"score_A":23,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":">Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.  If this was true to all topics then you would expect the people who have been through these terrible events to be the ones making the jokes. I don't see how people who have never experienced the thing their joking abould need to cope.    Generally when people say don't joke about a topic, they are assuming the joke is promoting the worng act. Like jokes about how to kill babies or minorities. These don't help people cope they are really just trying to be offensive.  You may be able to argue there is an appropriate time to make them, but I cannot see why we have a moral obligation to make said jokes like your post claims.","human_ref_B":"How do you know whether you have the right audience\/context, though? Like, not all rape victims want everyone to know that they are rape victims. So if you tell a rape joke that really hurts them, they have to choose between pretending they're okay, outing themselves as a victim in order for you to view their offense as legitimate, or objecting without outing themselves and being dismissed by you as one of those illegitimately offended parties.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14161.0,"score_ratio":1.0434782609}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2ob8n","c_root_id_B":"ea2dw54","created_at_utc_A":1542678790,"created_at_utc_B":1542669825,"score_A":24,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"How do you know whether you have the right audience\/context, though? Like, not all rape victims want everyone to know that they are rape victims. So if you tell a rape joke that really hurts them, they have to choose between pretending they're okay, outing themselves as a victim in order for you to view their offense as legitimate, or objecting without outing themselves and being dismissed by you as one of those illegitimately offended parties.","human_ref_B":">For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more.  So here's the thing. If a jewish person wants to make a holocaust joke? Sure. That's fine. If someone who legitimately thinks the holocause was exaggerated wants to... there probably isn't a context that's going to make that ok? I feel that who are you is inherently part of the joke you're telling. Your identity as the teller of the joke is the framing device the joke is conveyed in and therefore creates some of that context. So while there may be no specific topic that's off limits, there may be some topics that are off limits to certain people. A guy who has a history of sexually harassing women making a joke about some woman overreacting to an innocent comment takes on a sinister and inappropriate tone even if the woman in question is 100% overreacting to something 100% innocent and basically anyone else making that joke would be fine.   Generally, victims of something and ingroup members can almost always make jokes about that thing\/group. Minorities can make darkly comedic jokes about the way cops treat minorities. LGBT people can make jokes about how LGBT people are. But some of those exact same jokes, coming from a white cop or a straight conservative catholic might never be ok. Victimizers and members of the group from which most of the victimizers are seen to belong usually can't. Everyone else is context dependent.  But also, the important thing is that when you tell a risky joke, you are accepting the possibility of it going badly. If you know some people are going to be offended by the topic, but choose to push through, you don't get to say \"it was just a joke!\" because you knew the risk. It's a risk you can take, but the people getting upset aren't the bad guy because you gambled on their sensibilities without consulting them and lost.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8965.0,"score_ratio":1.8461538462}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2ob8n","c_root_id_B":"ea29gqw","created_at_utc_A":1542678790,"created_at_utc_B":1542666120,"score_A":24,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"How do you know whether you have the right audience\/context, though? Like, not all rape victims want everyone to know that they are rape victims. So if you tell a rape joke that really hurts them, they have to choose between pretending they're okay, outing themselves as a victim in order for you to view their offense as legitimate, or objecting without outing themselves and being dismissed by you as one of those illegitimately offended parties.","human_ref_B":"One of the core rules of comedy: nothing is off-limits as long as it's funnier than it is offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12670.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2dw54","c_root_id_B":"ea2rpzy","created_at_utc_A":1542669825,"created_at_utc_B":1542681649,"score_A":13,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":">For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more.  So here's the thing. If a jewish person wants to make a holocaust joke? Sure. That's fine. If someone who legitimately thinks the holocause was exaggerated wants to... there probably isn't a context that's going to make that ok? I feel that who are you is inherently part of the joke you're telling. Your identity as the teller of the joke is the framing device the joke is conveyed in and therefore creates some of that context. So while there may be no specific topic that's off limits, there may be some topics that are off limits to certain people. A guy who has a history of sexually harassing women making a joke about some woman overreacting to an innocent comment takes on a sinister and inappropriate tone even if the woman in question is 100% overreacting to something 100% innocent and basically anyone else making that joke would be fine.   Generally, victims of something and ingroup members can almost always make jokes about that thing\/group. Minorities can make darkly comedic jokes about the way cops treat minorities. LGBT people can make jokes about how LGBT people are. But some of those exact same jokes, coming from a white cop or a straight conservative catholic might never be ok. Victimizers and members of the group from which most of the victimizers are seen to belong usually can't. Everyone else is context dependent.  But also, the important thing is that when you tell a risky joke, you are accepting the possibility of it going badly. If you know some people are going to be offended by the topic, but choose to push through, you don't get to say \"it was just a joke!\" because you knew the risk. It's a risk you can take, but the people getting upset aren't the bad guy because you gambled on their sensibilities without consulting them and lost.","human_ref_B":"Life has changed my view on this one.    Everything used to be fair game for me to joke about.  But then I witnessed tragedy, I found love, I became a parent, and I changed my opinion.    Now I just don\u2019t see the point in doing anything that is going to cause another person to feel badly.    It\u2019s not like I\u2019ve lost my sense of humor.  I still enjoy all of the raunchy shit that I used to rant about, but now I just don\u2019t want to put someone else in a position that could cause them distress.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11824.0,"score_ratio":1.6153846154}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2ohsp","c_root_id_B":"ea2rpzy","created_at_utc_A":1542678947,"created_at_utc_B":1542681649,"score_A":11,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"The devil is in the details. Regardless of whether a holocaust victim or a Jewish person is present, you can tell a funny holocaust joke that uses the unique situational stuff of the holocaust. Or you can still tell a crass tasteless \"edgelord\" kinda joke.   For example, you could tell a deeply racist and offensive joke and pass it off as a \"joke\" but also look around to see who is laughing the most. Those are the closet racists or supremacists and you then make a beeline for them and form deeper bonds with them and form your racist clique.  A lot of people use humor as a code to get insights into the true nature of people. They also use humor as a veil, an excuse, to do offensive things. Their fallback answer and strategy being that \"these liberals are just too thin skinned and can't take a joke\".  While many times it is a genuine dilemma, like see Bill Burr. But many many other times, humor is just a thinly veiled excuse to just exhibit boorish behavior and then laugh it off when others object. Because you can say everyone was drunk or trying to be funny or shooting the gas or whatever.  Nobody's dumb. Everyone sees through the BS.","human_ref_B":"Life has changed my view on this one.    Everything used to be fair game for me to joke about.  But then I witnessed tragedy, I found love, I became a parent, and I changed my opinion.    Now I just don\u2019t see the point in doing anything that is going to cause another person to feel badly.    It\u2019s not like I\u2019ve lost my sense of humor.  I still enjoy all of the raunchy shit that I used to rant about, but now I just don\u2019t want to put someone else in a position that could cause them distress.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2702.0,"score_ratio":1.9090909091}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2rpzy","c_root_id_B":"ea29gqw","created_at_utc_A":1542681649,"created_at_utc_B":1542666120,"score_A":21,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Life has changed my view on this one.    Everything used to be fair game for me to joke about.  But then I witnessed tragedy, I found love, I became a parent, and I changed my opinion.    Now I just don\u2019t see the point in doing anything that is going to cause another person to feel badly.    It\u2019s not like I\u2019ve lost my sense of humor.  I still enjoy all of the raunchy shit that I used to rant about, but now I just don\u2019t want to put someone else in a position that could cause them distress.","human_ref_B":"One of the core rules of comedy: nothing is off-limits as long as it's funnier than it is offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15529.0,"score_ratio":2.625}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2wrtb","c_root_id_B":"ea2dw54","created_at_utc_A":1542686021,"created_at_utc_B":1542669825,"score_A":15,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"So the main problem I see with it is that you dont know everything about a person. Only one person I know personally knows I have been raped. Yet a lot of people make rape jokes. I usually need to leave the room and go sit by myself for a long time after hearing them. It could be the same with miscarriages and other personal tradgedies\/traumatic events. If you are with close friends and you know for sure they dont have issues with whatever you are joking about, fine, do it, but just try to remember that people dont share everything that happens to them.","human_ref_B":">For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more.  So here's the thing. If a jewish person wants to make a holocaust joke? Sure. That's fine. If someone who legitimately thinks the holocause was exaggerated wants to... there probably isn't a context that's going to make that ok? I feel that who are you is inherently part of the joke you're telling. Your identity as the teller of the joke is the framing device the joke is conveyed in and therefore creates some of that context. So while there may be no specific topic that's off limits, there may be some topics that are off limits to certain people. A guy who has a history of sexually harassing women making a joke about some woman overreacting to an innocent comment takes on a sinister and inappropriate tone even if the woman in question is 100% overreacting to something 100% innocent and basically anyone else making that joke would be fine.   Generally, victims of something and ingroup members can almost always make jokes about that thing\/group. Minorities can make darkly comedic jokes about the way cops treat minorities. LGBT people can make jokes about how LGBT people are. But some of those exact same jokes, coming from a white cop or a straight conservative catholic might never be ok. Victimizers and members of the group from which most of the victimizers are seen to belong usually can't. Everyone else is context dependent.  But also, the important thing is that when you tell a risky joke, you are accepting the possibility of it going badly. If you know some people are going to be offended by the topic, but choose to push through, you don't get to say \"it was just a joke!\" because you knew the risk. It's a risk you can take, but the people getting upset aren't the bad guy because you gambled on their sensibilities without consulting them and lost.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16196.0,"score_ratio":1.1538461538}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2wrtb","c_root_id_B":"ea2ohsp","created_at_utc_A":1542686021,"created_at_utc_B":1542678947,"score_A":15,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"So the main problem I see with it is that you dont know everything about a person. Only one person I know personally knows I have been raped. Yet a lot of people make rape jokes. I usually need to leave the room and go sit by myself for a long time after hearing them. It could be the same with miscarriages and other personal tradgedies\/traumatic events. If you are with close friends and you know for sure they dont have issues with whatever you are joking about, fine, do it, but just try to remember that people dont share everything that happens to them.","human_ref_B":"The devil is in the details. Regardless of whether a holocaust victim or a Jewish person is present, you can tell a funny holocaust joke that uses the unique situational stuff of the holocaust. Or you can still tell a crass tasteless \"edgelord\" kinda joke.   For example, you could tell a deeply racist and offensive joke and pass it off as a \"joke\" but also look around to see who is laughing the most. Those are the closet racists or supremacists and you then make a beeline for them and form deeper bonds with them and form your racist clique.  A lot of people use humor as a code to get insights into the true nature of people. They also use humor as a veil, an excuse, to do offensive things. Their fallback answer and strategy being that \"these liberals are just too thin skinned and can't take a joke\".  While many times it is a genuine dilemma, like see Bill Burr. But many many other times, humor is just a thinly veiled excuse to just exhibit boorish behavior and then laugh it off when others object. Because you can say everyone was drunk or trying to be funny or shooting the gas or whatever.  Nobody's dumb. Everyone sees through the BS.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7074.0,"score_ratio":1.3636363636}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea29gqw","c_root_id_B":"ea2wrtb","created_at_utc_A":1542666120,"created_at_utc_B":1542686021,"score_A":8,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"One of the core rules of comedy: nothing is off-limits as long as it's funnier than it is offensive.","human_ref_B":"So the main problem I see with it is that you dont know everything about a person. Only one person I know personally knows I have been raped. Yet a lot of people make rape jokes. I usually need to leave the room and go sit by myself for a long time after hearing them. It could be the same with miscarriages and other personal tradgedies\/traumatic events. If you are with close friends and you know for sure they dont have issues with whatever you are joking about, fine, do it, but just try to remember that people dont share everything that happens to them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19901.0,"score_ratio":1.875}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2dw54","c_root_id_B":"ea29gqw","created_at_utc_A":1542669825,"created_at_utc_B":1542666120,"score_A":13,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":">For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more.  So here's the thing. If a jewish person wants to make a holocaust joke? Sure. That's fine. If someone who legitimately thinks the holocause was exaggerated wants to... there probably isn't a context that's going to make that ok? I feel that who are you is inherently part of the joke you're telling. Your identity as the teller of the joke is the framing device the joke is conveyed in and therefore creates some of that context. So while there may be no specific topic that's off limits, there may be some topics that are off limits to certain people. A guy who has a history of sexually harassing women making a joke about some woman overreacting to an innocent comment takes on a sinister and inappropriate tone even if the woman in question is 100% overreacting to something 100% innocent and basically anyone else making that joke would be fine.   Generally, victims of something and ingroup members can almost always make jokes about that thing\/group. Minorities can make darkly comedic jokes about the way cops treat minorities. LGBT people can make jokes about how LGBT people are. But some of those exact same jokes, coming from a white cop or a straight conservative catholic might never be ok. Victimizers and members of the group from which most of the victimizers are seen to belong usually can't. Everyone else is context dependent.  But also, the important thing is that when you tell a risky joke, you are accepting the possibility of it going badly. If you know some people are going to be offended by the topic, but choose to push through, you don't get to say \"it was just a joke!\" because you knew the risk. It's a risk you can take, but the people getting upset aren't the bad guy because you gambled on their sensibilities without consulting them and lost.","human_ref_B":"One of the core rules of comedy: nothing is off-limits as long as it's funnier than it is offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3705.0,"score_ratio":1.625}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea2ohsp","c_root_id_B":"ea29gqw","created_at_utc_A":1542678947,"created_at_utc_B":1542666120,"score_A":11,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The devil is in the details. Regardless of whether a holocaust victim or a Jewish person is present, you can tell a funny holocaust joke that uses the unique situational stuff of the holocaust. Or you can still tell a crass tasteless \"edgelord\" kinda joke.   For example, you could tell a deeply racist and offensive joke and pass it off as a \"joke\" but also look around to see who is laughing the most. Those are the closet racists or supremacists and you then make a beeline for them and form deeper bonds with them and form your racist clique.  A lot of people use humor as a code to get insights into the true nature of people. They also use humor as a veil, an excuse, to do offensive things. Their fallback answer and strategy being that \"these liberals are just too thin skinned and can't take a joke\".  While many times it is a genuine dilemma, like see Bill Burr. But many many other times, humor is just a thinly veiled excuse to just exhibit boorish behavior and then laugh it off when others object. Because you can say everyone was drunk or trying to be funny or shooting the gas or whatever.  Nobody's dumb. Everyone sees through the BS.","human_ref_B":"One of the core rules of comedy: nothing is off-limits as long as it's funnier than it is offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12827.0,"score_ratio":1.375}
+{"post_id":"9yl907","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: anything can and should be joked about in the right context I believe that, in the right context, anything can and should be joked about. To say that some topics must never be made light of gives too much power to those things. For example, joking about the Holocaust, while not always situationally appropriate, helps us process the tragedy and reinforces that we won and that we aren\u2019t letting Nazis hold that power over us any more. To say it\u2019s never okay to joke about it is to give them and the event power over us, while making a joke out of it is the ultimate insult to Nazis and Hitler. Essentially, making a joke out of serious topics gives us power and takes away the negative power of those serious topics.   Now, I\u2019m not saying you should always tell jokes about serious topics. Don\u2019t make Holocaust jokes with a survivor unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it. Don\u2019t make dead baby jokes around someone who miscarried unless they make it clear they\u2019re okay with it.  However, if someone tries to be offended on the behalf of others but has no actual personal ties to the topic, then joke away. In that case, the offended party is in the wrong.   Tl;dr: as long as there\u2019s either nobody with a personal connection to a serious topic or those with the connection give the okay, anything can be joked about. Telling jokes about serious topics helps us cope and takes away the negative power of those topics.","c_root_id_A":"ea33nb6","c_root_id_B":"ea29gqw","created_at_utc_A":1542692876,"created_at_utc_B":1542666120,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"As people say, this is a hard one to really change your mind about. It's hard to say nothing can't ever be joked about. Louis ck has done good rape jokes while Daniel Tosh made a terrible one. A lot is left to the delivery.   It usually seems that the things that can be joked about are vague (rape) while it gets borderline offensive when it's specific(unless it's legitimately funny). I'm thinking of how Bill Maher is here. He is a dick.   And you mention context so it's hard to disprove that.   I think if you take away the \"should argument\", you can change your view and keep the basis of your viewpoint.   Should people joke about anything? No, they shouldn't.  Not if you care about others. You ever seen mean tweets? Some of that shit is really hurtful. It's directly meant to hurt others( in this case celebs). But if questioned they would all reply \"oh it was just a joke\"   And that is the crux of your argument.","human_ref_B":"One of the core rules of comedy: nothing is off-limits as long as it's funnier than it is offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26756.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff97e39","c_root_id_B":"ff8zj9p","created_at_utc_A":1579706573,"created_at_utc_B":1579700958,"score_A":716,"score_B":484,"human_ref_A":"I don't think this really hurts anyone but Hillary.  As for who it *helps*, well...  If anything, I think Bernie *picked up* points from it. His response was exactly the kind of response I want to see from a politician taking heat (especially undeserved heat) from someone. He didn't take the bait to start a fight, he didn't fire back with shitty insults, he didn't try to attack Hillary-- he was self-deprecating, a little funny, and showed that little personal digs weren't going to send him over the edge.  (His response was along the lines of \"On a good day, my wife likes me.\")  And I don't think it particularly hurts any other Democrats running either, since they're mostly staying out of it.  I think it just hurts Hillary, and as for her motivation, I think it's an old quote that was relevant to the interview she was having, and it's only coming up again because her documentary was just released. I don't think she particularly targeted the quote to attack Bernie right now specifically.  Does it help Trump? I don't know, I don't think so. If you're in Bernie's camp or undecided, then he came out ahead on this one. If you're in another Dem's camp, then you probably don't care too much (as far as it propping Bernie up or taking him down on your list). And if you're in Trump's camp, then you've already made up your mind.  If Hillary were actually running again, and if Bernie had taken the bait to start a fight, then sure maybe it'd help Trump. But as is, I can't see how he gets any benefit from it. I don't think there are too many people who are going to leave Bernie's camp because Hillary told them to.  E: don't be ridiculous guys. This wasn't an intentional ploy to bolster Bernie. Her comment was made *ages* ago, and would take a comic book villain level of planning, coordination and prescience to know how Bernie would react even in the best of conditions  And you *still* couldn't really predict how the public would react. People aren't that good at predicting public reactions, *especially* not the Clinton\/her staffers.  Not everything is a conspiracy. Bernie is just a good dude who handled a crappy comment really well.","human_ref_B":"Yes but Bernie isn't a Democrat. He caucuses with them and opposes Trump, but he won't sign on to the party. I don't blame most Democrats for being pissed off that the guy getting all the kudos from the Democrats isn't actually a member.  Clinton's job is to get a Democrat elected, not an independent.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5615.0,"score_ratio":1.479338843}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff900i5","c_root_id_B":"ff97e39","created_at_utc_A":1579701338,"created_at_utc_B":1579706573,"score_A":144,"score_B":716,"human_ref_A":"It helps Biden or Warren though, right? Wouldn't that be the intention?  Although given the level of animosity against Clinton, it might actually help *Bernie* when you think about it.","human_ref_B":"I don't think this really hurts anyone but Hillary.  As for who it *helps*, well...  If anything, I think Bernie *picked up* points from it. His response was exactly the kind of response I want to see from a politician taking heat (especially undeserved heat) from someone. He didn't take the bait to start a fight, he didn't fire back with shitty insults, he didn't try to attack Hillary-- he was self-deprecating, a little funny, and showed that little personal digs weren't going to send him over the edge.  (His response was along the lines of \"On a good day, my wife likes me.\")  And I don't think it particularly hurts any other Democrats running either, since they're mostly staying out of it.  I think it just hurts Hillary, and as for her motivation, I think it's an old quote that was relevant to the interview she was having, and it's only coming up again because her documentary was just released. I don't think she particularly targeted the quote to attack Bernie right now specifically.  Does it help Trump? I don't know, I don't think so. If you're in Bernie's camp or undecided, then he came out ahead on this one. If you're in another Dem's camp, then you probably don't care too much (as far as it propping Bernie up or taking him down on your list). And if you're in Trump's camp, then you've already made up your mind.  If Hillary were actually running again, and if Bernie had taken the bait to start a fight, then sure maybe it'd help Trump. But as is, I can't see how he gets any benefit from it. I don't think there are too many people who are going to leave Bernie's camp because Hillary told them to.  E: don't be ridiculous guys. This wasn't an intentional ploy to bolster Bernie. Her comment was made *ages* ago, and would take a comic book villain level of planning, coordination and prescience to know how Bernie would react even in the best of conditions  And you *still* couldn't really predict how the public would react. People aren't that good at predicting public reactions, *especially* not the Clinton\/her staffers.  Not everything is a conspiracy. Bernie is just a good dude who handled a crappy comment really well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5235.0,"score_ratio":4.9722222222}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff97e39","c_root_id_B":"ff95mq0","created_at_utc_A":1579706573,"created_at_utc_B":1579705406,"score_A":716,"score_B":61,"human_ref_A":"I don't think this really hurts anyone but Hillary.  As for who it *helps*, well...  If anything, I think Bernie *picked up* points from it. His response was exactly the kind of response I want to see from a politician taking heat (especially undeserved heat) from someone. He didn't take the bait to start a fight, he didn't fire back with shitty insults, he didn't try to attack Hillary-- he was self-deprecating, a little funny, and showed that little personal digs weren't going to send him over the edge.  (His response was along the lines of \"On a good day, my wife likes me.\")  And I don't think it particularly hurts any other Democrats running either, since they're mostly staying out of it.  I think it just hurts Hillary, and as for her motivation, I think it's an old quote that was relevant to the interview she was having, and it's only coming up again because her documentary was just released. I don't think she particularly targeted the quote to attack Bernie right now specifically.  Does it help Trump? I don't know, I don't think so. If you're in Bernie's camp or undecided, then he came out ahead on this one. If you're in another Dem's camp, then you probably don't care too much (as far as it propping Bernie up or taking him down on your list). And if you're in Trump's camp, then you've already made up your mind.  If Hillary were actually running again, and if Bernie had taken the bait to start a fight, then sure maybe it'd help Trump. But as is, I can't see how he gets any benefit from it. I don't think there are too many people who are going to leave Bernie's camp because Hillary told them to.  E: don't be ridiculous guys. This wasn't an intentional ploy to bolster Bernie. Her comment was made *ages* ago, and would take a comic book villain level of planning, coordination and prescience to know how Bernie would react even in the best of conditions  And you *still* couldn't really predict how the public would react. People aren't that good at predicting public reactions, *especially* not the Clinton\/her staffers.  Not everything is a conspiracy. Bernie is just a good dude who handled a crappy comment really well.","human_ref_B":"One of the biggest trends on Twitter following Hillary\u2019s comments was \u2018#ILikeBernie\u2019. There\u2019s so many people out there that despise Clinton (as we saw in 2016), so much that they\u2019d support Bernie just to spite her. I honestly believe that people would think twice about voting for any candidate endorsed by Clinton so if she ends up saying she doesn\u2019t like Bernie then that\u2019s probably a good thing and would make people back him even more.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1167.0,"score_ratio":11.737704918}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff97e39","c_root_id_B":"ff8ylat","created_at_utc_A":1579706573,"created_at_utc_B":1579700200,"score_A":716,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I don't think this really hurts anyone but Hillary.  As for who it *helps*, well...  If anything, I think Bernie *picked up* points from it. His response was exactly the kind of response I want to see from a politician taking heat (especially undeserved heat) from someone. He didn't take the bait to start a fight, he didn't fire back with shitty insults, he didn't try to attack Hillary-- he was self-deprecating, a little funny, and showed that little personal digs weren't going to send him over the edge.  (His response was along the lines of \"On a good day, my wife likes me.\")  And I don't think it particularly hurts any other Democrats running either, since they're mostly staying out of it.  I think it just hurts Hillary, and as for her motivation, I think it's an old quote that was relevant to the interview she was having, and it's only coming up again because her documentary was just released. I don't think she particularly targeted the quote to attack Bernie right now specifically.  Does it help Trump? I don't know, I don't think so. If you're in Bernie's camp or undecided, then he came out ahead on this one. If you're in another Dem's camp, then you probably don't care too much (as far as it propping Bernie up or taking him down on your list). And if you're in Trump's camp, then you've already made up your mind.  If Hillary were actually running again, and if Bernie had taken the bait to start a fight, then sure maybe it'd help Trump. But as is, I can't see how he gets any benefit from it. I don't think there are too many people who are going to leave Bernie's camp because Hillary told them to.  E: don't be ridiculous guys. This wasn't an intentional ploy to bolster Bernie. Her comment was made *ages* ago, and would take a comic book villain level of planning, coordination and prescience to know how Bernie would react even in the best of conditions  And you *still* couldn't really predict how the public would react. People aren't that good at predicting public reactions, *especially* not the Clinton\/her staffers.  Not everything is a conspiracy. Bernie is just a good dude who handled a crappy comment really well.","human_ref_B":"Your entire premise is flawed. Bernie voters turned out for Hillary at a higher rate than Hillary voters did for Obama in 2008. Furthermore, those that didn\u2019t turnout were never going to vote for Hillary to begin with. Lots of independents and republicans that hated her before they even knew Bernie existed.   Find someone else to blame for Hillary\u2019s failings.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6373.0,"score_ratio":34.0952380952}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff90aeg","c_root_id_B":"ff97e39","created_at_utc_A":1579701554,"created_at_utc_B":1579706573,"score_A":14,"score_B":716,"human_ref_A":"Bernie can use this as a fundraising opportunity: Want to see how many people like me? Donate now!  Many of the diehard Bernie supporters do not like Hillary Clinton (partly because of 2016, partly because she seemed fake and endlessly focus-grouped). This ignites the base and can even help to draw anti-Hillary people to Bernie.  >Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?  I really think she's just speaking her mind. She's out of politics, and presumably not pulling the strings anymore. She no longer needs to worry about pissing people off.","human_ref_B":"I don't think this really hurts anyone but Hillary.  As for who it *helps*, well...  If anything, I think Bernie *picked up* points from it. His response was exactly the kind of response I want to see from a politician taking heat (especially undeserved heat) from someone. He didn't take the bait to start a fight, he didn't fire back with shitty insults, he didn't try to attack Hillary-- he was self-deprecating, a little funny, and showed that little personal digs weren't going to send him over the edge.  (His response was along the lines of \"On a good day, my wife likes me.\")  And I don't think it particularly hurts any other Democrats running either, since they're mostly staying out of it.  I think it just hurts Hillary, and as for her motivation, I think it's an old quote that was relevant to the interview she was having, and it's only coming up again because her documentary was just released. I don't think she particularly targeted the quote to attack Bernie right now specifically.  Does it help Trump? I don't know, I don't think so. If you're in Bernie's camp or undecided, then he came out ahead on this one. If you're in another Dem's camp, then you probably don't care too much (as far as it propping Bernie up or taking him down on your list). And if you're in Trump's camp, then you've already made up your mind.  If Hillary were actually running again, and if Bernie had taken the bait to start a fight, then sure maybe it'd help Trump. But as is, I can't see how he gets any benefit from it. I don't think there are too many people who are going to leave Bernie's camp because Hillary told them to.  E: don't be ridiculous guys. This wasn't an intentional ploy to bolster Bernie. Her comment was made *ages* ago, and would take a comic book villain level of planning, coordination and prescience to know how Bernie would react even in the best of conditions  And you *still* couldn't really predict how the public would react. People aren't that good at predicting public reactions, *especially* not the Clinton\/her staffers.  Not everything is a conspiracy. Bernie is just a good dude who handled a crappy comment really well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5019.0,"score_ratio":51.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff8ylat","c_root_id_B":"ff8zj9p","created_at_utc_A":1579700200,"created_at_utc_B":1579700958,"score_A":21,"score_B":484,"human_ref_A":"Your entire premise is flawed. Bernie voters turned out for Hillary at a higher rate than Hillary voters did for Obama in 2008. Furthermore, those that didn\u2019t turnout were never going to vote for Hillary to begin with. Lots of independents and republicans that hated her before they even knew Bernie existed.   Find someone else to blame for Hillary\u2019s failings.","human_ref_B":"Yes but Bernie isn't a Democrat. He caucuses with them and opposes Trump, but he won't sign on to the party. I don't blame most Democrats for being pissed off that the guy getting all the kudos from the Democrats isn't actually a member.  Clinton's job is to get a Democrat elected, not an independent.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":758.0,"score_ratio":23.0476190476}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff900i5","c_root_id_B":"ff97w2l","created_at_utc_A":1579701338,"created_at_utc_B":1579706894,"score_A":144,"score_B":476,"human_ref_A":"It helps Biden or Warren though, right? Wouldn't that be the intention?  Although given the level of animosity against Clinton, it might actually help *Bernie* when you think about it.","human_ref_B":"Plenty of people online like my self donating to Bernie after seeing Clinton's comments.  I'd say in that way alone it's helping someone other than Trump: namely Bernie.  When I see the person who lost an election to the worst candidate in history who should be hanging her head in disgrace and hiding in shame for the rest of her life come out against something, that sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.  If Clinton thinks it's the wrong move politically to back someone, that person is probably exactly who you should be backing.  Cause she lost to a rapist and a criminal who was up there bragging about sexual assault and making fun of disabled people.  Because she fucking sucks at politics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5556.0,"score_ratio":3.3055555556}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff97w2l","c_root_id_B":"ff95mq0","created_at_utc_A":1579706894,"created_at_utc_B":1579705406,"score_A":476,"score_B":61,"human_ref_A":"Plenty of people online like my self donating to Bernie after seeing Clinton's comments.  I'd say in that way alone it's helping someone other than Trump: namely Bernie.  When I see the person who lost an election to the worst candidate in history who should be hanging her head in disgrace and hiding in shame for the rest of her life come out against something, that sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.  If Clinton thinks it's the wrong move politically to back someone, that person is probably exactly who you should be backing.  Cause she lost to a rapist and a criminal who was up there bragging about sexual assault and making fun of disabled people.  Because she fucking sucks at politics.","human_ref_B":"One of the biggest trends on Twitter following Hillary\u2019s comments was \u2018#ILikeBernie\u2019. There\u2019s so many people out there that despise Clinton (as we saw in 2016), so much that they\u2019d support Bernie just to spite her. I honestly believe that people would think twice about voting for any candidate endorsed by Clinton so if she ends up saying she doesn\u2019t like Bernie then that\u2019s probably a good thing and would make people back him even more.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1488.0,"score_ratio":7.8032786885}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff97w2l","c_root_id_B":"ff8ylat","created_at_utc_A":1579706894,"created_at_utc_B":1579700200,"score_A":476,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Plenty of people online like my self donating to Bernie after seeing Clinton's comments.  I'd say in that way alone it's helping someone other than Trump: namely Bernie.  When I see the person who lost an election to the worst candidate in history who should be hanging her head in disgrace and hiding in shame for the rest of her life come out against something, that sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.  If Clinton thinks it's the wrong move politically to back someone, that person is probably exactly who you should be backing.  Cause she lost to a rapist and a criminal who was up there bragging about sexual assault and making fun of disabled people.  Because she fucking sucks at politics.","human_ref_B":"Your entire premise is flawed. Bernie voters turned out for Hillary at a higher rate than Hillary voters did for Obama in 2008. Furthermore, those that didn\u2019t turnout were never going to vote for Hillary to begin with. Lots of independents and republicans that hated her before they even knew Bernie existed.   Find someone else to blame for Hillary\u2019s failings.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6694.0,"score_ratio":22.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff90aeg","c_root_id_B":"ff97w2l","created_at_utc_A":1579701554,"created_at_utc_B":1579706894,"score_A":14,"score_B":476,"human_ref_A":"Bernie can use this as a fundraising opportunity: Want to see how many people like me? Donate now!  Many of the diehard Bernie supporters do not like Hillary Clinton (partly because of 2016, partly because she seemed fake and endlessly focus-grouped). This ignites the base and can even help to draw anti-Hillary people to Bernie.  >Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?  I really think she's just speaking her mind. She's out of politics, and presumably not pulling the strings anymore. She no longer needs to worry about pissing people off.","human_ref_B":"Plenty of people online like my self donating to Bernie after seeing Clinton's comments.  I'd say in that way alone it's helping someone other than Trump: namely Bernie.  When I see the person who lost an election to the worst candidate in history who should be hanging her head in disgrace and hiding in shame for the rest of her life come out against something, that sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.  If Clinton thinks it's the wrong move politically to back someone, that person is probably exactly who you should be backing.  Cause she lost to a rapist and a criminal who was up there bragging about sexual assault and making fun of disabled people.  Because she fucking sucks at politics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5340.0,"score_ratio":34.0}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff8ylat","c_root_id_B":"ff900i5","created_at_utc_A":1579700200,"created_at_utc_B":1579701338,"score_A":21,"score_B":144,"human_ref_A":"Your entire premise is flawed. Bernie voters turned out for Hillary at a higher rate than Hillary voters did for Obama in 2008. Furthermore, those that didn\u2019t turnout were never going to vote for Hillary to begin with. Lots of independents and republicans that hated her before they even knew Bernie existed.   Find someone else to blame for Hillary\u2019s failings.","human_ref_B":"It helps Biden or Warren though, right? Wouldn't that be the intention?  Although given the level of animosity against Clinton, it might actually help *Bernie* when you think about it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1138.0,"score_ratio":6.8571428571}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff95mq0","c_root_id_B":"ff8ylat","created_at_utc_A":1579705406,"created_at_utc_B":1579700200,"score_A":61,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"One of the biggest trends on Twitter following Hillary\u2019s comments was \u2018#ILikeBernie\u2019. There\u2019s so many people out there that despise Clinton (as we saw in 2016), so much that they\u2019d support Bernie just to spite her. I honestly believe that people would think twice about voting for any candidate endorsed by Clinton so if she ends up saying she doesn\u2019t like Bernie then that\u2019s probably a good thing and would make people back him even more.","human_ref_B":"Your entire premise is flawed. Bernie voters turned out for Hillary at a higher rate than Hillary voters did for Obama in 2008. Furthermore, those that didn\u2019t turnout were never going to vote for Hillary to begin with. Lots of independents and republicans that hated her before they even knew Bernie existed.   Find someone else to blame for Hillary\u2019s failings.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5206.0,"score_ratio":2.9047619048}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff95mq0","c_root_id_B":"ff90aeg","created_at_utc_A":1579705406,"created_at_utc_B":1579701554,"score_A":61,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"One of the biggest trends on Twitter following Hillary\u2019s comments was \u2018#ILikeBernie\u2019. There\u2019s so many people out there that despise Clinton (as we saw in 2016), so much that they\u2019d support Bernie just to spite her. I honestly believe that people would think twice about voting for any candidate endorsed by Clinton so if she ends up saying she doesn\u2019t like Bernie then that\u2019s probably a good thing and would make people back him even more.","human_ref_B":"Bernie can use this as a fundraising opportunity: Want to see how many people like me? Donate now!  Many of the diehard Bernie supporters do not like Hillary Clinton (partly because of 2016, partly because she seemed fake and endlessly focus-grouped). This ignites the base and can even help to draw anti-Hillary people to Bernie.  >Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?  I really think she's just speaking her mind. She's out of politics, and presumably not pulling the strings anymore. She no longer needs to worry about pissing people off.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3852.0,"score_ratio":4.3571428571}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff98ib8","c_root_id_B":"ff9cjrs","created_at_utc_A":1579707295,"created_at_utc_B":1579709923,"score_A":16,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I think it's a tremendous help to Bernie. Hear me out.  Hillary really isn't well liked by Dem voters. Her turnout was atrocious. She's a career politician and she lost to a game show host.  There's also this dawning realization in America that the regular folk are getting screwed over and the people at the top are doing the screwing. Being hated by the establishment is part of Bernie's appeal.  Third and finally, if we're talking about Bernie, we're not talking about the other candidates. The Trump election showed that that's HUGE.","human_ref_B":"Clinton's \"beef\" with Sanders has nothing to do with Sanders and everything to do with her primary race against Obama in 2008. Clinton played every trick in the book, down to racist dogwhistles and playing weird politics with Michigan and Florida, and dragged the election all the way to the DNC, where she lost, but with the understanding that she would get to be the next candidate once Obama's terms were up. She was *not* happy about it, and it was even worse when Obama didn't offer her the VP and instead nominated her as Secretary of State. I remember a lot of concern that she might not accept any such cabinet post, and you might or might not remember that she and Obama clashed over and over again on foreign policy issues, which basically led to her being left out of his second administration. There was a LOT of bad blood.  You'll notice that essentially no one ran against Clinton in 2016....except Sanders, who was not a member of the Democratic Party in 2008 and had made no such commitment to allowing Clinton to run unopposed. So Sanders pushing hard in the primary was *a complete violation* of what she expected from the Democratic Party based on the 2008 election, and she has re-aligned her public criticism onto Sanders, but mostly she is still pissed off about Obama.   I would agree that this does harm the left to some degree, but Clinton is such a toxic brand among swing-voters that, frankly, this might actually be good for Sanders's numbers in the general. A lot of the Obama-to-Trump voters weren't necessarily rejecting policies; they were rejecting Clinton, who they saw as a haughty elitist. Clinton's endorsement won't help any Democratic voter peel off the center-right voters who switched from Obama to Trump, but her public statements against Bernie might actually help him with that demographic.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2628.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff9cjrs","c_root_id_B":"ff9902r","created_at_utc_A":1579709923,"created_at_utc_B":1579707611,"score_A":18,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Clinton's \"beef\" with Sanders has nothing to do with Sanders and everything to do with her primary race against Obama in 2008. Clinton played every trick in the book, down to racist dogwhistles and playing weird politics with Michigan and Florida, and dragged the election all the way to the DNC, where she lost, but with the understanding that she would get to be the next candidate once Obama's terms were up. She was *not* happy about it, and it was even worse when Obama didn't offer her the VP and instead nominated her as Secretary of State. I remember a lot of concern that she might not accept any such cabinet post, and you might or might not remember that she and Obama clashed over and over again on foreign policy issues, which basically led to her being left out of his second administration. There was a LOT of bad blood.  You'll notice that essentially no one ran against Clinton in 2016....except Sanders, who was not a member of the Democratic Party in 2008 and had made no such commitment to allowing Clinton to run unopposed. So Sanders pushing hard in the primary was *a complete violation* of what she expected from the Democratic Party based on the 2008 election, and she has re-aligned her public criticism onto Sanders, but mostly she is still pissed off about Obama.   I would agree that this does harm the left to some degree, but Clinton is such a toxic brand among swing-voters that, frankly, this might actually be good for Sanders's numbers in the general. A lot of the Obama-to-Trump voters weren't necessarily rejecting policies; they were rejecting Clinton, who they saw as a haughty elitist. Clinton's endorsement won't help any Democratic voter peel off the center-right voters who switched from Obama to Trump, but her public statements against Bernie might actually help him with that demographic.","human_ref_B":"It's just the democrat's turn to have their party fractured.  The Republicans had it in 2015 with Trump and populism.  Populism finally overcame neoconservatism to put Trump in office.  Hillary is just reacting to the radicalism that is developing in the democratic party.  Most of the people running for the democratic nomination are deeply uncomfortable with how radical the party is becoming, but they play along because they still need that radical vote.  Hillary isn't going to run ever again, so she can speak her mind truthfully.  She doesn't like socialism any more than the average republican.  Bernie has been pushing socialism and communism his entire life.  The democratic party was a party of liberalism, but it is becoming a party of socialism.  Hillary's comments are just a response to that.    I believe that the direction that both parties are taking currently represent a monumental shift in American politics away from globalism.  Both parties have woken up to the reality of how bad global corporations have treated the citizenry.  The difference is in how the parties seek to address the problem.  The GOP populists seek to pursue protectionist economic policy to bolster domestic industry, whereas the democrat socialists seek to control and regulate domestic industry to contain its worst impulses.  Regardless, both parties are taking stances against global industry.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2312.0,"score_ratio":1.0588235294}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff9cjrs","c_root_id_B":"ff90aeg","created_at_utc_A":1579709923,"created_at_utc_B":1579701554,"score_A":18,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Clinton's \"beef\" with Sanders has nothing to do with Sanders and everything to do with her primary race against Obama in 2008. Clinton played every trick in the book, down to racist dogwhistles and playing weird politics with Michigan and Florida, and dragged the election all the way to the DNC, where she lost, but with the understanding that she would get to be the next candidate once Obama's terms were up. She was *not* happy about it, and it was even worse when Obama didn't offer her the VP and instead nominated her as Secretary of State. I remember a lot of concern that she might not accept any such cabinet post, and you might or might not remember that she and Obama clashed over and over again on foreign policy issues, which basically led to her being left out of his second administration. There was a LOT of bad blood.  You'll notice that essentially no one ran against Clinton in 2016....except Sanders, who was not a member of the Democratic Party in 2008 and had made no such commitment to allowing Clinton to run unopposed. So Sanders pushing hard in the primary was *a complete violation* of what she expected from the Democratic Party based on the 2008 election, and she has re-aligned her public criticism onto Sanders, but mostly she is still pissed off about Obama.   I would agree that this does harm the left to some degree, but Clinton is such a toxic brand among swing-voters that, frankly, this might actually be good for Sanders's numbers in the general. A lot of the Obama-to-Trump voters weren't necessarily rejecting policies; they were rejecting Clinton, who they saw as a haughty elitist. Clinton's endorsement won't help any Democratic voter peel off the center-right voters who switched from Obama to Trump, but her public statements against Bernie might actually help him with that demographic.","human_ref_B":"Bernie can use this as a fundraising opportunity: Want to see how many people like me? Donate now!  Many of the diehard Bernie supporters do not like Hillary Clinton (partly because of 2016, partly because she seemed fake and endlessly focus-grouped). This ignites the base and can even help to draw anti-Hillary people to Bernie.  >Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?  I really think she's just speaking her mind. She's out of politics, and presumably not pulling the strings anymore. She no longer needs to worry about pissing people off.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8369.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff98pz0","c_root_id_B":"ff9cjrs","created_at_utc_A":1579707433,"created_at_utc_B":1579709923,"score_A":11,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Republicans and Democrats are losing their grip on their parties. The Trump and Bernie supporters are proof of this. People have been voting for change since Obama promised it. Although some change happened it wasn't really enough to satisfy the majority of voters. Hillary is a true Democrat so a vote for anyone outside of Biden is a threat to her parties success in her eyes. If you remember Hillary was favored to beat Trump. She arguably won every debate but it still wasn't enough.  If Biden wins the primary for the Democrats the only hope he has of winning will be hate for Trump not  voters passion for Biden.  Anyone who would vote for Biden is not likely to vote Trump over Bernie if he wins the primary but the opposite is not true.","human_ref_B":"Clinton's \"beef\" with Sanders has nothing to do with Sanders and everything to do with her primary race against Obama in 2008. Clinton played every trick in the book, down to racist dogwhistles and playing weird politics with Michigan and Florida, and dragged the election all the way to the DNC, where she lost, but with the understanding that she would get to be the next candidate once Obama's terms were up. She was *not* happy about it, and it was even worse when Obama didn't offer her the VP and instead nominated her as Secretary of State. I remember a lot of concern that she might not accept any such cabinet post, and you might or might not remember that she and Obama clashed over and over again on foreign policy issues, which basically led to her being left out of his second administration. There was a LOT of bad blood.  You'll notice that essentially no one ran against Clinton in 2016....except Sanders, who was not a member of the Democratic Party in 2008 and had made no such commitment to allowing Clinton to run unopposed. So Sanders pushing hard in the primary was *a complete violation* of what she expected from the Democratic Party based on the 2008 election, and she has re-aligned her public criticism onto Sanders, but mostly she is still pissed off about Obama.   I would agree that this does harm the left to some degree, but Clinton is such a toxic brand among swing-voters that, frankly, this might actually be good for Sanders's numbers in the general. A lot of the Obama-to-Trump voters weren't necessarily rejecting policies; they were rejecting Clinton, who they saw as a haughty elitist. Clinton's endorsement won't help any Democratic voter peel off the center-right voters who switched from Obama to Trump, but her public statements against Bernie might actually help him with that demographic.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2490.0,"score_ratio":1.6363636364}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff98ib8","c_root_id_B":"ff9902r","created_at_utc_A":1579707295,"created_at_utc_B":1579707611,"score_A":16,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"I think it's a tremendous help to Bernie. Hear me out.  Hillary really isn't well liked by Dem voters. Her turnout was atrocious. She's a career politician and she lost to a game show host.  There's also this dawning realization in America that the regular folk are getting screwed over and the people at the top are doing the screwing. Being hated by the establishment is part of Bernie's appeal.  Third and finally, if we're talking about Bernie, we're not talking about the other candidates. The Trump election showed that that's HUGE.","human_ref_B":"It's just the democrat's turn to have their party fractured.  The Republicans had it in 2015 with Trump and populism.  Populism finally overcame neoconservatism to put Trump in office.  Hillary is just reacting to the radicalism that is developing in the democratic party.  Most of the people running for the democratic nomination are deeply uncomfortable with how radical the party is becoming, but they play along because they still need that radical vote.  Hillary isn't going to run ever again, so she can speak her mind truthfully.  She doesn't like socialism any more than the average republican.  Bernie has been pushing socialism and communism his entire life.  The democratic party was a party of liberalism, but it is becoming a party of socialism.  Hillary's comments are just a response to that.    I believe that the direction that both parties are taking currently represent a monumental shift in American politics away from globalism.  Both parties have woken up to the reality of how bad global corporations have treated the citizenry.  The difference is in how the parties seek to address the problem.  The GOP populists seek to pursue protectionist economic policy to bolster domestic industry, whereas the democrat socialists seek to control and regulate domestic industry to contain its worst impulses.  Regardless, both parties are taking stances against global industry.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":316.0,"score_ratio":1.0625}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff98ib8","c_root_id_B":"ff90aeg","created_at_utc_A":1579707295,"created_at_utc_B":1579701554,"score_A":16,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I think it's a tremendous help to Bernie. Hear me out.  Hillary really isn't well liked by Dem voters. Her turnout was atrocious. She's a career politician and she lost to a game show host.  There's also this dawning realization in America that the regular folk are getting screwed over and the people at the top are doing the screwing. Being hated by the establishment is part of Bernie's appeal.  Third and finally, if we're talking about Bernie, we're not talking about the other candidates. The Trump election showed that that's HUGE.","human_ref_B":"Bernie can use this as a fundraising opportunity: Want to see how many people like me? Donate now!  Many of the diehard Bernie supporters do not like Hillary Clinton (partly because of 2016, partly because she seemed fake and endlessly focus-grouped). This ignites the base and can even help to draw anti-Hillary people to Bernie.  >Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?  I really think she's just speaking her mind. She's out of politics, and presumably not pulling the strings anymore. She no longer needs to worry about pissing people off.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5741.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff9902r","c_root_id_B":"ff90aeg","created_at_utc_A":1579707611,"created_at_utc_B":1579701554,"score_A":17,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"It's just the democrat's turn to have their party fractured.  The Republicans had it in 2015 with Trump and populism.  Populism finally overcame neoconservatism to put Trump in office.  Hillary is just reacting to the radicalism that is developing in the democratic party.  Most of the people running for the democratic nomination are deeply uncomfortable with how radical the party is becoming, but they play along because they still need that radical vote.  Hillary isn't going to run ever again, so she can speak her mind truthfully.  She doesn't like socialism any more than the average republican.  Bernie has been pushing socialism and communism his entire life.  The democratic party was a party of liberalism, but it is becoming a party of socialism.  Hillary's comments are just a response to that.    I believe that the direction that both parties are taking currently represent a monumental shift in American politics away from globalism.  Both parties have woken up to the reality of how bad global corporations have treated the citizenry.  The difference is in how the parties seek to address the problem.  The GOP populists seek to pursue protectionist economic policy to bolster domestic industry, whereas the democrat socialists seek to control and regulate domestic industry to contain its worst impulses.  Regardless, both parties are taking stances against global industry.","human_ref_B":"Bernie can use this as a fundraising opportunity: Want to see how many people like me? Donate now!  Many of the diehard Bernie supporters do not like Hillary Clinton (partly because of 2016, partly because she seemed fake and endlessly focus-grouped). This ignites the base and can even help to draw anti-Hillary people to Bernie.  >Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?  I really think she's just speaking her mind. She's out of politics, and presumably not pulling the strings anymore. She no longer needs to worry about pissing people off.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6057.0,"score_ratio":1.2142857143}
+{"post_id":"esbw24","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Hillary Clinton's newest statement about Bernie is not helping anyone but Trump. I hope this doesn't become some troll filled anti-Trump or pro-Trump or anti-Clinton garbage fire.  That is NOT my intent.  I'm hoping a few adults show up to this.  ​  Hillary Clinton echoed an old statement she made that \"nobody likes Bernie\" and that he has been around for years and no one wants to work with him and she feel bad for people who got sucked in (to support him.)    ​  I think most Democrats feel that ANY Democrat is a country mile better than reelecting Trump.  (yes, just like every Republican knows Trump is better than Hillary- that's not the point here.)  I think some Democrats who voted for Hillary did so because she was not Donald Trump.  There were also many people who stayed home because the two options were just not worth going out to vote for. 2016 was a twenty year low turnout.  Part of this was caused by a lot of Bernie supporters refusing to vote over all the bad blood- a conversation I'm hoping not to get into again right now.  ​  It is the easiest thing in the world- and really the only option for any person running or in a position of influence who calls themselves a Democrat to say \"I will of course support whoever emerges as the Democrat Candidate.\"  At the very least just keep quiet if you feel you can not say that!  Why go out of your way like Clinton did to talk shit?  What is she getting from doing this?  Hillary is seen as a Hawk and not super progressive but she is certainly in the same ballpark as Bernie as opposed to Trump who is playing a different sport altogether.  ​  But does Hillary Clinton feel the need to rehash bad blood from 2016 or try an odd power grab, or... I don't even know what she is doing and why.  Does anyone honestly see a benefit to her doing this or is she just over the line a bit?","c_root_id_A":"ff98pz0","c_root_id_B":"ff9902r","created_at_utc_A":1579707433,"created_at_utc_B":1579707611,"score_A":11,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Republicans and Democrats are losing their grip on their parties. The Trump and Bernie supporters are proof of this. People have been voting for change since Obama promised it. Although some change happened it wasn't really enough to satisfy the majority of voters. Hillary is a true Democrat so a vote for anyone outside of Biden is a threat to her parties success in her eyes. If you remember Hillary was favored to beat Trump. She arguably won every debate but it still wasn't enough.  If Biden wins the primary for the Democrats the only hope he has of winning will be hate for Trump not  voters passion for Biden.  Anyone who would vote for Biden is not likely to vote Trump over Bernie if he wins the primary but the opposite is not true.","human_ref_B":"It's just the democrat's turn to have their party fractured.  The Republicans had it in 2015 with Trump and populism.  Populism finally overcame neoconservatism to put Trump in office.  Hillary is just reacting to the radicalism that is developing in the democratic party.  Most of the people running for the democratic nomination are deeply uncomfortable with how radical the party is becoming, but they play along because they still need that radical vote.  Hillary isn't going to run ever again, so she can speak her mind truthfully.  She doesn't like socialism any more than the average republican.  Bernie has been pushing socialism and communism his entire life.  The democratic party was a party of liberalism, but it is becoming a party of socialism.  Hillary's comments are just a response to that.    I believe that the direction that both parties are taking currently represent a monumental shift in American politics away from globalism.  Both parties have woken up to the reality of how bad global corporations have treated the citizenry.  The difference is in how the parties seek to address the problem.  The GOP populists seek to pursue protectionist economic policy to bolster domestic industry, whereas the democrat socialists seek to control and regulate domestic industry to contain its worst impulses.  Regardless, both parties are taking stances against global industry.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":178.0,"score_ratio":1.5454545455}
+{"post_id":"50slbu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: A negative paternity test should exclude a man from paying child support and any money paid should be returned unless there was a legal adoption. There have been many cases I've read recently where men are forced to pay support, or jailed for not paying support to children proven not to be theirs. This is either because the woman put a man's name on the forms to receive assistance and he didn't get the notification and it's too late to fight it, or a man had a cheating wife and she had a child by her lover.  I believe this is wrong and should be ended. It is unjust to force someone to pay for a child that isn't theirs unless they were in the know to begin with and a legal adoption took place. To that end I believe a negative DNA test should be enough to end any child support obligation and that all paid funds should be returned by the fraudulent mother. As for monetary support of the child that would then be upon the mother to either support the child herself or take the biological father to court to enforce his responsibility.  This came up in a group conversation and I was told it was wrong and cruel to women but the other party could not elaborate on how or why. I'm looking for the other side of this coin.  _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d76spub","c_root_id_B":"d76ndgv","created_at_utc_A":1472827575,"created_at_utc_B":1472818493,"score_A":256,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"The state should pay the man. Requiring the mom to pay harms the child and it's the states fault for assigning payments to the man without being certain it was his responsibility. If the mom did it maliciously she should be charged and the child placed with family\/cps","human_ref_B":"While I agree that a man shouldn't be forced to pay for a kid that is provably not his - I disagree that the money he already paid into the child should be given back.  First off, it's unlikely that the mother and\/or the child is going to be in a position to be able to pay back child support payments. Say that they track the biological father down and force *him* to start paying - well now he's just paying the other dad because of a mistake (or even malevolence on the part of the mother) and the child isn't getting anything.  Child support is ostensibly about the children. It's not about giving the mother money for having the kid, it's about the cost of raising a child and how we as a society have decided to approach the subject. If you start forcing someone in a situation that is receiving child support to themselves pay some form of child support there's only one person you're actually harming here - the child.  So while I agree the man has suffered an injustice no matter the circumstances surrounding this injustice I don't really see a very good option for him getting any sort of payback. I would rather not throw the baby out with the bathwater and harm a child (or children) because we want to balance the scales.  Edit: Oh, alright, you want to punish children for having the audacity to be born. I'm out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9082.0,"score_ratio":3.3246753247}
+{"post_id":"50slbu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: A negative paternity test should exclude a man from paying child support and any money paid should be returned unless there was a legal adoption. There have been many cases I've read recently where men are forced to pay support, or jailed for not paying support to children proven not to be theirs. This is either because the woman put a man's name on the forms to receive assistance and he didn't get the notification and it's too late to fight it, or a man had a cheating wife and she had a child by her lover.  I believe this is wrong and should be ended. It is unjust to force someone to pay for a child that isn't theirs unless they were in the know to begin with and a legal adoption took place. To that end I believe a negative DNA test should be enough to end any child support obligation and that all paid funds should be returned by the fraudulent mother. As for monetary support of the child that would then be upon the mother to either support the child herself or take the biological father to court to enforce his responsibility.  This came up in a group conversation and I was told it was wrong and cruel to women but the other party could not elaborate on how or why. I'm looking for the other side of this coin.  _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d77h16k","c_root_id_B":"d76w51y","created_at_utc_A":1472862756,"created_at_utc_B":1472832204,"score_A":66,"score_B":57,"human_ref_A":"Okay, divorce lawyer chiming in here. First of all, there are probably a lot fewer of these cases than you would think. Every time I've ordered a Dna test, the presumed father is the father. Among my colleagues, I can think of one case where he wasn't the father in the last five years (and that was a juicy one - it was his brother!)  These things come up in one of two cases. 1) it was a one night stand or the parties ended their relationship before the baby was born or 2) the guy raised the child as their own for a time (usually years) and then questions paternity when they're asked to pay child support.   In option 1, the court generally isn't going to make an order of child support until paternity is proven so, at least in my jurisdiction, it's not really a concern.   In option 2 there is more than just genetics at play - being a parent to a child is a lot more than just sharing the same blood. If you take a child on as your own, you 'stand in the place of a parent' (in loco parentis) and may be found to have an obligation to pay support. In Canada where I am, there is generally an obligation on the mother to seek support from the biological father before seeking support from the in loco parentis one.   Child support is not a reward for mothers (or fathers, depending on custody), it is the right of the child to be supported by their parents. In Canada a parent cannot waive the child's right to be supported - even if they don't want the support or don't want the full amount, the court can (and usually does) make the order anyway.   Here's something interesting - in France it is illegal to get a paternity test. If you're a French citizen you can't even get one in another country. Their thinking is your parents are the ones that raise you, whether or not they are your blood.   TL:DR. This really doesn't happen that often and the primary obligation for support is generally of the biological parents, but if you raise a child as your own it's not reasonable for you to be permitted just to wipe your hands of them","human_ref_B":"Exclude the man from paying child support? Sounds reasonable.  Give him a refund on said child support from the mother?  Much less convinced.  If a man doubts that he is the father of a child he has the opportunity when the child is born to get a DNA test.  If instead he takes the mother's word for it, then he is sitting on his rights\/waiving his defense to child support.  He should contest the paternity when the issue first arises, and should not be rewarded for sitting on his hands for so long.  This situation of waiving a defense is not unique to the subject of paternity.  In civil procedure, when someone makes a claim against you there are certain defenses that you *must* raise in your first answer to that claim (for example: lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of venue etc...).  If you do not raise any of these issues in a timely manner then all of them are considered waived.  Why would we have a court system that makes timing an important part of defenses?  Because our court system has two main goals: accuracy and efficiency.  Preventing defendant's from bringing up defenses later in trial prevents a trial from reaching the later stages, and then the defendant asserting a defense that he should have known about as soon as he received the initial filing.  Efficiency is also the reason we have statute of limitations on most civil claims.  If you do not exercise your rights in time, then the court system isn't going to litigate the case.  The same logic applies in these paternity cases.  As soon as you are told that you have to pay child support for a child you do not believe to be yours, it is your responsibility to bring up any affirmative defenses to paying, i.e. to argue that you are not the father.  This can be in many forms, but probably the most convincing would be a DNA test.  If someone makes a claim against you and then you present no evidence in your own defense, how would you expect courts to react?  When you later decide that maybe you want to contest the paternity, there should be some avenue open, but getting a refund for your own negligence in challenging the claim in the first place is clearly ridiculous.  tl;dr: Court systems need to balance efficiency and accuracy and sometimes you will get edge case of injustice occurring when people do not actively defend their rights.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30552.0,"score_ratio":1.1578947368}
+{"post_id":"dfuld3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: The backlash against blizzard is completely deserved Currently, there are not many way to pressure the chinese government and HK authorities about the protests, least inform chinese people on the subject.  Blizzard's move to ban this player was a very bad one and the backlash is completely deserved. Deleting accounts, and voting with dollars are excellent ways to reach chinese players and make noise about this issue. It's not possible to keep using blizzard's product because it means users are indirectly against HK protesters and supporting the chinese government.  What Blizzard did amounts to censorship.","c_root_id_A":"f35xgdo","c_root_id_B":"f35znkn","created_at_utc_A":1570696088,"created_at_utc_B":1570699792,"score_A":4,"score_B":837,"human_ref_A":"It's a stretch to say that people who play Blizzard's game continue to support China. Some of them are unaware of the riot or Blizzard's stance and really love Blizzard games for their games.","human_ref_B":"1. Unfortunately, for any company that provide a media product (which is what the Hearthstone tournaments were), the media product's value is drastically devalued by allowing it to be used as a political platform. Think about, for instance, a player chanting \"Build the Wall\", or \"Impeach Trump now\" on the stream - this would have a similar effect. 2. Blizzard had to act in order to prevent its content (and platform) from being hijacked for political purposes. 3. Blizzard probably went too far in its punishment of the player and the casters. 4. However, the reaction, and the backlash, as you put it, have been completely out of proportion as well.  5. The amount of effort, and noise, as you put it, seen on reddit seem to me to be the symptom of Blizzard being the easiest thing to virtue signal, or have a group outrage, about. It's very within Reddit's base to have a Blizzard account, and for such persons to have viable alternatives to Blizzard, that it was the \"cheapest\" way of making a statement. No similar campaign was made of Disney, Apple, NBA, or indeed any other company or company representative that took a stand on Hong Kong. 6. If the stated aim is to pressure the Chinese government, then Blizzard is absolutely the wrong target as well - the Chinese Govt certainly doesn't care about any Blizzard boycott. The Chinese players of Hearthstone aren't affected by your boycott either - in fact, they would probably benefit if Blizzard would focus more attention on their market as opposed to the West. 7. Blizzard, as a private company and not a govt, cannot censor anything. They are free to decide what messages go out on their product, same as how Chick-fil-a is free to decide not to open on Sunday.  Therefore, while I do think that people have every right to boycott Blizzard if they feel strongly enough about it, I think Blizzard is in an unfortunate confluence of factors creating a perfect storm for the outrage on reddit.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3704.0,"score_ratio":209.25}
+{"post_id":"dfuld3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: The backlash against blizzard is completely deserved Currently, there are not many way to pressure the chinese government and HK authorities about the protests, least inform chinese people on the subject.  Blizzard's move to ban this player was a very bad one and the backlash is completely deserved. Deleting accounts, and voting with dollars are excellent ways to reach chinese players and make noise about this issue. It's not possible to keep using blizzard's product because it means users are indirectly against HK protesters and supporting the chinese government.  What Blizzard did amounts to censorship.","c_root_id_A":"f36u23d","c_root_id_B":"f368vsx","created_at_utc_A":1570717541,"created_at_utc_B":1570708557,"score_A":74,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"It needs to be noted that Blizzard stopping someone from using their platform as a political message platform is an an absolute necessity.  Especially in regards to China because of the nature of China.  Other people have commented the obvious things, but I didn't see anyone mention the people aspect of this.    China is well known to hold business executives hostage, preventing people from leaving the country when they visit, or finding people \"guilty\" of crimes as a means of political statement.  Blizzard not only has employees that live in China, but also have employees visiting there and players visiting China for tournaments.  Starting next year, they will have teams of players visiting for home games for the Chinese teams.  At worst, China could disrupt the entire tournament process by denying teams entry once they land causing a massive disruption to the games.  At worst, they could detain those teams permanently - especially if one of those teams was made of players from a state that they are already contentious with like South Korea.  Blizzard absolutely should be doing this, specifically for the safety of their staff and esports players.","human_ref_B":"My issue is that they took the money he won away and fired the casters.  A warning to the participants would have been fine. Even thought I agree with the sentiment, if they were screaming MAGA or other Fascistic crap I'd pissed off.  Just delay the broadcast by a few seconds to prevent it. Now if this was on like individual games as opposed to the international show, Then that would be crappy","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8984.0,"score_ratio":3.5238095238}
+{"post_id":"dfuld3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: The backlash against blizzard is completely deserved Currently, there are not many way to pressure the chinese government and HK authorities about the protests, least inform chinese people on the subject.  Blizzard's move to ban this player was a very bad one and the backlash is completely deserved. Deleting accounts, and voting with dollars are excellent ways to reach chinese players and make noise about this issue. It's not possible to keep using blizzard's product because it means users are indirectly against HK protesters and supporting the chinese government.  What Blizzard did amounts to censorship.","c_root_id_A":"f35xgdo","c_root_id_B":"f36u23d","created_at_utc_A":1570696088,"created_at_utc_B":1570717541,"score_A":4,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"It's a stretch to say that people who play Blizzard's game continue to support China. Some of them are unaware of the riot or Blizzard's stance and really love Blizzard games for their games.","human_ref_B":"It needs to be noted that Blizzard stopping someone from using their platform as a political message platform is an an absolute necessity.  Especially in regards to China because of the nature of China.  Other people have commented the obvious things, but I didn't see anyone mention the people aspect of this.    China is well known to hold business executives hostage, preventing people from leaving the country when they visit, or finding people \"guilty\" of crimes as a means of political statement.  Blizzard not only has employees that live in China, but also have employees visiting there and players visiting China for tournaments.  Starting next year, they will have teams of players visiting for home games for the Chinese teams.  At worst, China could disrupt the entire tournament process by denying teams entry once they land causing a massive disruption to the games.  At worst, they could detain those teams permanently - especially if one of those teams was made of players from a state that they are already contentious with like South Korea.  Blizzard absolutely should be doing this, specifically for the safety of their staff and esports players.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21453.0,"score_ratio":18.5}
+{"post_id":"dfuld3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: The backlash against blizzard is completely deserved Currently, there are not many way to pressure the chinese government and HK authorities about the protests, least inform chinese people on the subject.  Blizzard's move to ban this player was a very bad one and the backlash is completely deserved. Deleting accounts, and voting with dollars are excellent ways to reach chinese players and make noise about this issue. It's not possible to keep using blizzard's product because it means users are indirectly against HK protesters and supporting the chinese government.  What Blizzard did amounts to censorship.","c_root_id_A":"f35xgdo","c_root_id_B":"f368vsx","created_at_utc_A":1570696088,"created_at_utc_B":1570708557,"score_A":4,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"It's a stretch to say that people who play Blizzard's game continue to support China. Some of them are unaware of the riot or Blizzard's stance and really love Blizzard games for their games.","human_ref_B":"My issue is that they took the money he won away and fired the casters.  A warning to the participants would have been fine. Even thought I agree with the sentiment, if they were screaming MAGA or other Fascistic crap I'd pissed off.  Just delay the broadcast by a few seconds to prevent it. Now if this was on like individual games as opposed to the international show, Then that would be crappy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12469.0,"score_ratio":5.25}
+{"post_id":"dfuld3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: The backlash against blizzard is completely deserved Currently, there are not many way to pressure the chinese government and HK authorities about the protests, least inform chinese people on the subject.  Blizzard's move to ban this player was a very bad one and the backlash is completely deserved. Deleting accounts, and voting with dollars are excellent ways to reach chinese players and make noise about this issue. It's not possible to keep using blizzard's product because it means users are indirectly against HK protesters and supporting the chinese government.  What Blizzard did amounts to censorship.","c_root_id_A":"f37jt1a","c_root_id_B":"f370gfa","created_at_utc_A":1570726754,"created_at_utc_B":1570719948,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"> What Blizzard did amounts to censorship.  Blizzard is fully within their rights to set whatever rules of conduct they want on people participating in their events. This is no different than my employer telling me that I can't tell customers that Trump should be impeached. My employer has every right to tell me that, and they have every right to fire me if I refuse to follow that rule. And that doesn't necessarily mean that the company has a view that Trump *shouldn't* be impeached; it just means they know it could be bad for business, and they separate what they believe from what's best for business. Remember that a company's only real obligation is to make as much money as possible for its investors while not breaking any laws. They're in no way required to advocate for free speech to the extent that it costs them money. If they put freedom of speech above profits, then pretty much every investor would back out immediately and there wouldn't be a business anymore at all.","human_ref_B":"Blizzard and all game companies censor their users on a constant basis.  Whether its to ban racist players from their service or someone who is generally disagreeable and gets enough complaints against them or someone smoking weed on camera or for a number of different reasons.  Twitch is famous for banning their content providers who use their service for nudity or for sex work.  The questions isn't whether it's censorship or not, it most certainly is, but whether or not it's allowable under their rules of play.  I'm not familiar with Blizzard's rules so I couldn't say one way or the other, but they are claiming that it's a violation of their ToS.  If so, then it's within their purview, whether we consider it morally repugnant or not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6806.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"dfuld3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: The backlash against blizzard is completely deserved Currently, there are not many way to pressure the chinese government and HK authorities about the protests, least inform chinese people on the subject.  Blizzard's move to ban this player was a very bad one and the backlash is completely deserved. Deleting accounts, and voting with dollars are excellent ways to reach chinese players and make noise about this issue. It's not possible to keep using blizzard's product because it means users are indirectly against HK protesters and supporting the chinese government.  What Blizzard did amounts to censorship.","c_root_id_A":"f370gfa","c_root_id_B":"f35xgdo","created_at_utc_A":1570719948,"created_at_utc_B":1570696088,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Blizzard and all game companies censor their users on a constant basis.  Whether its to ban racist players from their service or someone who is generally disagreeable and gets enough complaints against them or someone smoking weed on camera or for a number of different reasons.  Twitch is famous for banning their content providers who use their service for nudity or for sex work.  The questions isn't whether it's censorship or not, it most certainly is, but whether or not it's allowable under their rules of play.  I'm not familiar with Blizzard's rules so I couldn't say one way or the other, but they are claiming that it's a violation of their ToS.  If so, then it's within their purview, whether we consider it morally repugnant or not.","human_ref_B":"It's a stretch to say that people who play Blizzard's game continue to support China. Some of them are unaware of the riot or Blizzard's stance and really love Blizzard games for their games.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23860.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"dfuld3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: The backlash against blizzard is completely deserved Currently, there are not many way to pressure the chinese government and HK authorities about the protests, least inform chinese people on the subject.  Blizzard's move to ban this player was a very bad one and the backlash is completely deserved. Deleting accounts, and voting with dollars are excellent ways to reach chinese players and make noise about this issue. It's not possible to keep using blizzard's product because it means users are indirectly against HK protesters and supporting the chinese government.  What Blizzard did amounts to censorship.","c_root_id_A":"f37x5nz","c_root_id_B":"f35xgdo","created_at_utc_A":1570731299,"created_at_utc_B":1570696088,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think people take it too personally.  China is a huge chunk of blizzards income, enough so that it could very well be the end of them if they got on the wrong side of China's firewall. And everyone expects them to die on that hill in order to make a statement\/do the morally sound thing.  Should they? Again, morally, yes, and its something that needs to happen if we don't want China walking all over our economy, but looking at it objectively and without emotion I can't say I blame them.  That said, I think the backlash is a good thing and needs to continue. Blizzard came to the conclusion that the consiquences of angering the Chinese market outweighed the consiquences of angering the Western market. Making them regret this decision and not yield to the Chinese government in the future is what we need to happen, so the backlash and bad PR is the pressure that will hopefully make that happen.  Tldr; everything people are doing in response to blizzards actions is a good thing, but I think people humanize companies too much.","human_ref_B":"It's a stretch to say that people who play Blizzard's game continue to support China. Some of them are unaware of the riot or Blizzard's stance and really love Blizzard games for their games.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35211.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"dfuld3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: The backlash against blizzard is completely deserved Currently, there are not many way to pressure the chinese government and HK authorities about the protests, least inform chinese people on the subject.  Blizzard's move to ban this player was a very bad one and the backlash is completely deserved. Deleting accounts, and voting with dollars are excellent ways to reach chinese players and make noise about this issue. It's not possible to keep using blizzard's product because it means users are indirectly against HK protesters and supporting the chinese government.  What Blizzard did amounts to censorship.","c_root_id_A":"f35xgdo","c_root_id_B":"f37jt1a","created_at_utc_A":1570696088,"created_at_utc_B":1570726754,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"It's a stretch to say that people who play Blizzard's game continue to support China. Some of them are unaware of the riot or Blizzard's stance and really love Blizzard games for their games.","human_ref_B":"> What Blizzard did amounts to censorship.  Blizzard is fully within their rights to set whatever rules of conduct they want on people participating in their events. This is no different than my employer telling me that I can't tell customers that Trump should be impeached. My employer has every right to tell me that, and they have every right to fire me if I refuse to follow that rule. And that doesn't necessarily mean that the company has a view that Trump *shouldn't* be impeached; it just means they know it could be bad for business, and they separate what they believe from what's best for business. Remember that a company's only real obligation is to make as much money as possible for its investors while not breaking any laws. They're in no way required to advocate for free speech to the extent that it costs them money. If they put freedom of speech above profits, then pretty much every investor would back out immediately and there wouldn't be a business anymore at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30666.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyfsv49","c_root_id_B":"eyfrkyw","created_at_utc_A":1567054398,"created_at_utc_B":1567053738,"score_A":796,"score_B":322,"human_ref_A":"In species with high sexual dimorphism, it is common for the weaker side to not consent. This is a part of nature, so in terms of animals, whether there is consent doesn't really matter in that context, since it happens anyway.   However, I would say having beastality is wrong because it highly contradicts common human values and could largely disrupt society as a whole, and not because it is necessarily disgusting.","human_ref_B":"What about the risk of zoonotic diseases, diseases that cross over from animals to humans? Much like HIV and Ebola has, and bad strains of influenza (although this is airborne).  Cooking before eating, and not having sex with animals, reduces the risk of these things happening considerably. Is that enough reason?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":660.0,"score_ratio":2.4720496894}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyfsv49","c_root_id_B":"eyfs4um","created_at_utc_A":1567054398,"created_at_utc_B":1567054028,"score_A":796,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"In species with high sexual dimorphism, it is common for the weaker side to not consent. This is a part of nature, so in terms of animals, whether there is consent doesn't really matter in that context, since it happens anyway.   However, I would say having beastality is wrong because it highly contradicts common human values and could largely disrupt society as a whole, and not because it is necessarily disgusting.","human_ref_B":"If a kid let's say like 6 tries to force themselves on you and you have sex with them is that wrong on your part?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":370.0,"score_ratio":28.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyg5cfq","c_root_id_B":"eyg0cxa","created_at_utc_A":1567061804,"created_at_utc_B":1567058708,"score_A":226,"score_B":82,"human_ref_A":"> I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds.  The rest of your post aside, this is not a great view to hold in my opinion. Banning something because YOU disagree with it isn't a good reason to have it banned. While I think most people would agree in this specific situation, others might not if your views were against more mainstream ideas  (eg Gay marriage, LGBT rights etc)   Requesting something be banned because you are disgusted is a terrible argument. I'm certain there are at least a few things you see as 'normal' that someone out there wants banned because they are offended or disgusted.","human_ref_B":"There is an moral basis to this: the only legal answer was to outlaw it, because the alternative is to regulate it, which is virtually impossible.  &#x200B;  So we will assume for sake of argument that it's not illegal. There is no disgust, because that is what you say is the ONLY reason it should be illegal. Animal cruelty still exists as a crime for which a person can be charged. Sexual activity can be a health hazard if done improperly, even within the same species.  &#x200B;  A Farmer rents out his or her sheep to a passing human person with a penis, for penetrative sex. It's at this point that I looked up to double check whether you had a NSFW tag but let's play fast and loose with our hypothetical penis. The sheep gets injured and later dies. The Farmer's accountant finds out a sheep died and asks why. The Farmer cannot write off the sheep because it's not insured because it was fucked to death. The Farmer's investors earn less that quarter than projected due to that sheep being the one they needed to complete a massive order on time with a huge bonus; that bonus is now gone. The Investors decide to sue the Farmer for the loss of that bonus, so their lawyers have a meeting and decide to go to arbitration. The Farmer convinces the Investors to settle in exchange for also fucking sheep. These sheep also die. Due to gross sexual incompetence, the Investors fuck all their sheeps to death and are forced to file for bankruptcy. When the Government comes to collect taxes and discovers that the business suddenly died, they'll ask why. Then they'll look at the Farmer, the Investors, their lawyers, and say:  &#x200B;  \"Well, that's a completely legitimate risk of the occupation. If Sheep didn't want to get fucked, they wouldn't have let us breed them to be soft.\" And then the agent in charge of the case will turn and put the former company's file in the folder labeled \"Bestiality Losses - Agriculture - Ranching - Sheep\". At no point is this entirely unplausible, but just walk through the garden of delights and step off at any time knowing that if this were reality you wouldn't be able to just click away. This would be the way the world works, commoditizing and exploiting *everything* ***forever.***  &#x200B;  The reason it's outlawed in every major religion and legal system is because it's deeply, deeply unwise. There's no physical or spiritual gain, at all. It's a waste of energy for satisfaction. And in the oldschool, sex-repressed religions, personal satisfaction took a backsaddle to personal responsibility. Hey, not saying that was the reality, just the message. Don't fuck animals. It's not practical, or seemly, and the disgust factor really is more of a bourgeoise reason to get upset with anything.  &#x200B;  I edited this 8 times, deal with it <3 xoxoxo","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3096.0,"score_ratio":2.756097561}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyg03d4","c_root_id_B":"eyg5cfq","created_at_utc_A":1567058547,"created_at_utc_B":1567061804,"score_A":32,"score_B":226,"human_ref_A":"I think that you have a very American view on the topic of \"consent\". Which means that the word and many behaviours and norms around it make no sense at all and contradict themself. As a dog breeder I can say that dogs can give consent. The female dog will not let any male mate with her unless she is ovulating. So dogs and other social animals have a concept of consent and live it.   So your thesis that \"animals cannot consent to sex\" is nonsense is right. But for other reasons as the reasoning you provide in your comment.","human_ref_B":"> I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds.  The rest of your post aside, this is not a great view to hold in my opinion. Banning something because YOU disagree with it isn't a good reason to have it banned. While I think most people would agree in this specific situation, others might not if your views were against more mainstream ideas  (eg Gay marriage, LGBT rights etc)   Requesting something be banned because you are disgusted is a terrible argument. I'm certain there are at least a few things you see as 'normal' that someone out there wants banned because they are offended or disgusted.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3257.0,"score_ratio":7.0625}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyg2ovs","c_root_id_B":"eyg5cfq","created_at_utc_A":1567060137,"created_at_utc_B":1567061804,"score_A":33,"score_B":226,"human_ref_A":"So the best argument I've figured for this goes like this:  Yes, an animal can indicate that it wants sex, but so can a teenager (13+). The reason we don't allow that is both kids and animals don't have the tools to escape abusive relationships, and any relationship with a human adult is by nature going to have a massive power dynamic.  There are some flaws in this argument. One is that larger animals (cows, horses) would probably be able to beat the shit out of a human if given the motivation and chance. However dogs especially are unlikely to use force even in that situation   I also suspect that most people do dislike it on gut feeling, that's disgusting, sanitation type grounds","human_ref_B":"> I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds.  The rest of your post aside, this is not a great view to hold in my opinion. Banning something because YOU disagree with it isn't a good reason to have it banned. While I think most people would agree in this specific situation, others might not if your views were against more mainstream ideas  (eg Gay marriage, LGBT rights etc)   Requesting something be banned because you are disgusted is a terrible argument. I'm certain there are at least a few things you see as 'normal' that someone out there wants banned because they are offended or disgusted.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1667.0,"score_ratio":6.8484848485}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyfs4um","c_root_id_B":"eyg5cfq","created_at_utc_A":1567054028,"created_at_utc_B":1567061804,"score_A":28,"score_B":226,"human_ref_A":"If a kid let's say like 6 tries to force themselves on you and you have sex with them is that wrong on your part?","human_ref_B":"> I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds.  The rest of your post aside, this is not a great view to hold in my opinion. Banning something because YOU disagree with it isn't a good reason to have it banned. While I think most people would agree in this specific situation, others might not if your views were against more mainstream ideas  (eg Gay marriage, LGBT rights etc)   Requesting something be banned because you are disgusted is a terrible argument. I'm certain there are at least a few things you see as 'normal' that someone out there wants banned because they are offended or disgusted.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7776.0,"score_ratio":8.0714285714}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyfx801","c_root_id_B":"eyg5cfq","created_at_utc_A":1567056884,"created_at_utc_B":1567061804,"score_A":26,"score_B":226,"human_ref_A":"animals dont have legal personhood so they cant rape or be raped. The reason you cant have sex with them has nothing to do with rape or consent.   Not sure if you find necrophilia disgusting? It is legal in some states. It's illegal in others but not because corpses cant consent. You might find sex with animals disgusting and its illegal but sex with animal corpses is even more disgusting but its not illegal. So the legality does not have to do with disgust","human_ref_B":"> I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds.  The rest of your post aside, this is not a great view to hold in my opinion. Banning something because YOU disagree with it isn't a good reason to have it banned. While I think most people would agree in this specific situation, others might not if your views were against more mainstream ideas  (eg Gay marriage, LGBT rights etc)   Requesting something be banned because you are disgusted is a terrible argument. I'm certain there are at least a few things you see as 'normal' that someone out there wants banned because they are offended or disgusted.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4920.0,"score_ratio":8.6923076923}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyg0cxa","c_root_id_B":"eyg03d4","created_at_utc_A":1567058708,"created_at_utc_B":1567058547,"score_A":82,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"There is an moral basis to this: the only legal answer was to outlaw it, because the alternative is to regulate it, which is virtually impossible.  &#x200B;  So we will assume for sake of argument that it's not illegal. There is no disgust, because that is what you say is the ONLY reason it should be illegal. Animal cruelty still exists as a crime for which a person can be charged. Sexual activity can be a health hazard if done improperly, even within the same species.  &#x200B;  A Farmer rents out his or her sheep to a passing human person with a penis, for penetrative sex. It's at this point that I looked up to double check whether you had a NSFW tag but let's play fast and loose with our hypothetical penis. The sheep gets injured and later dies. The Farmer's accountant finds out a sheep died and asks why. The Farmer cannot write off the sheep because it's not insured because it was fucked to death. The Farmer's investors earn less that quarter than projected due to that sheep being the one they needed to complete a massive order on time with a huge bonus; that bonus is now gone. The Investors decide to sue the Farmer for the loss of that bonus, so their lawyers have a meeting and decide to go to arbitration. The Farmer convinces the Investors to settle in exchange for also fucking sheep. These sheep also die. Due to gross sexual incompetence, the Investors fuck all their sheeps to death and are forced to file for bankruptcy. When the Government comes to collect taxes and discovers that the business suddenly died, they'll ask why. Then they'll look at the Farmer, the Investors, their lawyers, and say:  &#x200B;  \"Well, that's a completely legitimate risk of the occupation. If Sheep didn't want to get fucked, they wouldn't have let us breed them to be soft.\" And then the agent in charge of the case will turn and put the former company's file in the folder labeled \"Bestiality Losses - Agriculture - Ranching - Sheep\". At no point is this entirely unplausible, but just walk through the garden of delights and step off at any time knowing that if this were reality you wouldn't be able to just click away. This would be the way the world works, commoditizing and exploiting *everything* ***forever.***  &#x200B;  The reason it's outlawed in every major religion and legal system is because it's deeply, deeply unwise. There's no physical or spiritual gain, at all. It's a waste of energy for satisfaction. And in the oldschool, sex-repressed religions, personal satisfaction took a backsaddle to personal responsibility. Hey, not saying that was the reality, just the message. Don't fuck animals. It's not practical, or seemly, and the disgust factor really is more of a bourgeoise reason to get upset with anything.  &#x200B;  I edited this 8 times, deal with it <3 xoxoxo","human_ref_B":"I think that you have a very American view on the topic of \"consent\". Which means that the word and many behaviours and norms around it make no sense at all and contradict themself. As a dog breeder I can say that dogs can give consent. The female dog will not let any male mate with her unless she is ovulating. So dogs and other social animals have a concept of consent and live it.   So your thesis that \"animals cannot consent to sex\" is nonsense is right. But for other reasons as the reasoning you provide in your comment.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":161.0,"score_ratio":2.5625}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyg0cxa","c_root_id_B":"eyfs4um","created_at_utc_A":1567058708,"created_at_utc_B":1567054028,"score_A":82,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"There is an moral basis to this: the only legal answer was to outlaw it, because the alternative is to regulate it, which is virtually impossible.  &#x200B;  So we will assume for sake of argument that it's not illegal. There is no disgust, because that is what you say is the ONLY reason it should be illegal. Animal cruelty still exists as a crime for which a person can be charged. Sexual activity can be a health hazard if done improperly, even within the same species.  &#x200B;  A Farmer rents out his or her sheep to a passing human person with a penis, for penetrative sex. It's at this point that I looked up to double check whether you had a NSFW tag but let's play fast and loose with our hypothetical penis. The sheep gets injured and later dies. The Farmer's accountant finds out a sheep died and asks why. The Farmer cannot write off the sheep because it's not insured because it was fucked to death. The Farmer's investors earn less that quarter than projected due to that sheep being the one they needed to complete a massive order on time with a huge bonus; that bonus is now gone. The Investors decide to sue the Farmer for the loss of that bonus, so their lawyers have a meeting and decide to go to arbitration. The Farmer convinces the Investors to settle in exchange for also fucking sheep. These sheep also die. Due to gross sexual incompetence, the Investors fuck all their sheeps to death and are forced to file for bankruptcy. When the Government comes to collect taxes and discovers that the business suddenly died, they'll ask why. Then they'll look at the Farmer, the Investors, their lawyers, and say:  &#x200B;  \"Well, that's a completely legitimate risk of the occupation. If Sheep didn't want to get fucked, they wouldn't have let us breed them to be soft.\" And then the agent in charge of the case will turn and put the former company's file in the folder labeled \"Bestiality Losses - Agriculture - Ranching - Sheep\". At no point is this entirely unplausible, but just walk through the garden of delights and step off at any time knowing that if this were reality you wouldn't be able to just click away. This would be the way the world works, commoditizing and exploiting *everything* ***forever.***  &#x200B;  The reason it's outlawed in every major religion and legal system is because it's deeply, deeply unwise. There's no physical or spiritual gain, at all. It's a waste of energy for satisfaction. And in the oldschool, sex-repressed religions, personal satisfaction took a backsaddle to personal responsibility. Hey, not saying that was the reality, just the message. Don't fuck animals. It's not practical, or seemly, and the disgust factor really is more of a bourgeoise reason to get upset with anything.  &#x200B;  I edited this 8 times, deal with it <3 xoxoxo","human_ref_B":"If a kid let's say like 6 tries to force themselves on you and you have sex with them is that wrong on your part?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4680.0,"score_ratio":2.9285714286}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyg0cxa","c_root_id_B":"eyfx801","created_at_utc_A":1567058708,"created_at_utc_B":1567056884,"score_A":82,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"There is an moral basis to this: the only legal answer was to outlaw it, because the alternative is to regulate it, which is virtually impossible.  &#x200B;  So we will assume for sake of argument that it's not illegal. There is no disgust, because that is what you say is the ONLY reason it should be illegal. Animal cruelty still exists as a crime for which a person can be charged. Sexual activity can be a health hazard if done improperly, even within the same species.  &#x200B;  A Farmer rents out his or her sheep to a passing human person with a penis, for penetrative sex. It's at this point that I looked up to double check whether you had a NSFW tag but let's play fast and loose with our hypothetical penis. The sheep gets injured and later dies. The Farmer's accountant finds out a sheep died and asks why. The Farmer cannot write off the sheep because it's not insured because it was fucked to death. The Farmer's investors earn less that quarter than projected due to that sheep being the one they needed to complete a massive order on time with a huge bonus; that bonus is now gone. The Investors decide to sue the Farmer for the loss of that bonus, so their lawyers have a meeting and decide to go to arbitration. The Farmer convinces the Investors to settle in exchange for also fucking sheep. These sheep also die. Due to gross sexual incompetence, the Investors fuck all their sheeps to death and are forced to file for bankruptcy. When the Government comes to collect taxes and discovers that the business suddenly died, they'll ask why. Then they'll look at the Farmer, the Investors, their lawyers, and say:  &#x200B;  \"Well, that's a completely legitimate risk of the occupation. If Sheep didn't want to get fucked, they wouldn't have let us breed them to be soft.\" And then the agent in charge of the case will turn and put the former company's file in the folder labeled \"Bestiality Losses - Agriculture - Ranching - Sheep\". At no point is this entirely unplausible, but just walk through the garden of delights and step off at any time knowing that if this were reality you wouldn't be able to just click away. This would be the way the world works, commoditizing and exploiting *everything* ***forever.***  &#x200B;  The reason it's outlawed in every major religion and legal system is because it's deeply, deeply unwise. There's no physical or spiritual gain, at all. It's a waste of energy for satisfaction. And in the oldschool, sex-repressed religions, personal satisfaction took a backsaddle to personal responsibility. Hey, not saying that was the reality, just the message. Don't fuck animals. It's not practical, or seemly, and the disgust factor really is more of a bourgeoise reason to get upset with anything.  &#x200B;  I edited this 8 times, deal with it <3 xoxoxo","human_ref_B":"animals dont have legal personhood so they cant rape or be raped. The reason you cant have sex with them has nothing to do with rape or consent.   Not sure if you find necrophilia disgusting? It is legal in some states. It's illegal in others but not because corpses cant consent. You might find sex with animals disgusting and its illegal but sex with animal corpses is even more disgusting but its not illegal. So the legality does not have to do with disgust","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1824.0,"score_ratio":3.1538461538}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyg03d4","c_root_id_B":"eygbw9i","created_at_utc_A":1567058547,"created_at_utc_B":1567066221,"score_A":32,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"I think that you have a very American view on the topic of \"consent\". Which means that the word and many behaviours and norms around it make no sense at all and contradict themself. As a dog breeder I can say that dogs can give consent. The female dog will not let any male mate with her unless she is ovulating. So dogs and other social animals have a concept of consent and live it.   So your thesis that \"animals cannot consent to sex\" is nonsense is right. But for other reasons as the reasoning you provide in your comment.","human_ref_B":"I think it's slightly more complex than this because there is a sense in which animals can clearly consent and a sense in which animals clearly cannot consent.   If we mean consent as in an animal can agree or disagree with a course of action, it's pretty obvious that animals can consent. Anyone with a working brain who has ever interacted with any vertebrate for more than 10 minutes will notice that animals appear to be okay with some things and not okay with other things. Anyone who has owned a pet will to some degree learn to read their pet's body language and have a pretty good guess of exactly what the animal wants and doesn't want to do. So in this sense of consent, you're absolutely right.  However, there's a sense in which animals can't consent, which is what people who use this argument tend to mean. Animals certainly can't give *informed* consent because they don't understand what \"sex\" is on the same level that humans do. Saying an animal can give informed consent because it appears happy to do a course of activity is as meaningless as saying a dog has signed a legal contract because it appeared happy to affix its paw print in the space reserved for a signature. When we describe ethical sexual relations, we generally want both parties to really, fully understand all the implications, and animals definitely can't do that.  But I actually agree with your point anyway. The second definition is pretty silly to apply to human-animal relations because \"sex\" isn't a super special secret class of actions. If animals can't give informed consent for one activity, sex, they can't give informed consent for *any* activity. So if \"informed consent\" were the standard for ethical human-animal relations, literally anything we do with animals would be wrong, whether or not they appear to like it. It would be just as wrong to feed your dog a treat as to stab it in the face since it can't give informed consent to either course of action.   So I think a more relevant set of ethics to apply is simply the question: does it *harm* the animal? This is similar to what we'd do with children. We make kids go to school even if they don't want to, because it's good for them. We make kids stop eating candy even if they like it because too much candy is bad for them. We certainly don't have sex with kids because that will *really* mess them up, and that's bad. Problem solved.  Except that with animals, that's not quite the case, because I think it's harder to establish that some form of sexual contact with an animal constitutes harm in and of itself. This might strike some people as crazy and inappropriate to say, but even Peter Singer has written a short essay in which he agrees with this. The paradigm example given is a woman who gets off while riding a horse because the motion of the horse sexually stimulates her. While that's... kind of gross, I think you'd have a hard time arguing this is in any way harmful to the horse. I doubt the horse cares or notices one way or another anymore than your dog cares if you masturbate in front of it. We might feel uncomfortable about the idea, but it's difficult to say that it's wrong on any grounds of animal welfare. In fact, we kind of manipulate the sexual lives of animals a lot, up to and including literally physically shoving sperm inside them because we breed animals. So thinking rationally about it, it's hard to say that bestiality is wrong per se.   But should it still be illegal anyway? Well, we shouldn't make something illegal just because it's gross. Some people like eating poop and get off to it. That's... super gross, but I don't think it should be illegal. I just don't want to see or hear about it. So should we treat bestiality the same?  In this case, I'd say no because animals are basically helpless. Even though I think you can come up with examples of situations where having sex with animals isn't harmful to the animal, there are so, so many situations where it is, and if anything is a universal human trait it's the abuse of power. At the very least, it should be pretty strongly socially discouraged just because of that. If bestiality were widely accepted, that would probably result in bad consequences for animals because have you seen what people do to animals *now*? Bestiality being accepted makes me think of news stories like the orangutan that was forced to be a prostitute which makes me feel awful in a way I can't really put into words. The question of whether it should be illegal or not should be an issue of whether existing animal cruelty laws are sufficient to protect animals.   So in short, while I think you have a point, your last sentence is a perfectly good reason to make bestiality illegal. You don't need to make it illegal because it's gross- you can just make it illegal because public acceptance of bestiality would definitely lead to more animal abuse even if not every individual case of it necessarily is.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7674.0,"score_ratio":1.3125}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eygbw9i","c_root_id_B":"eyg2ovs","created_at_utc_A":1567066221,"created_at_utc_B":1567060137,"score_A":42,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"I think it's slightly more complex than this because there is a sense in which animals can clearly consent and a sense in which animals clearly cannot consent.   If we mean consent as in an animal can agree or disagree with a course of action, it's pretty obvious that animals can consent. Anyone with a working brain who has ever interacted with any vertebrate for more than 10 minutes will notice that animals appear to be okay with some things and not okay with other things. Anyone who has owned a pet will to some degree learn to read their pet's body language and have a pretty good guess of exactly what the animal wants and doesn't want to do. So in this sense of consent, you're absolutely right.  However, there's a sense in which animals can't consent, which is what people who use this argument tend to mean. Animals certainly can't give *informed* consent because they don't understand what \"sex\" is on the same level that humans do. Saying an animal can give informed consent because it appears happy to do a course of activity is as meaningless as saying a dog has signed a legal contract because it appeared happy to affix its paw print in the space reserved for a signature. When we describe ethical sexual relations, we generally want both parties to really, fully understand all the implications, and animals definitely can't do that.  But I actually agree with your point anyway. The second definition is pretty silly to apply to human-animal relations because \"sex\" isn't a super special secret class of actions. If animals can't give informed consent for one activity, sex, they can't give informed consent for *any* activity. So if \"informed consent\" were the standard for ethical human-animal relations, literally anything we do with animals would be wrong, whether or not they appear to like it. It would be just as wrong to feed your dog a treat as to stab it in the face since it can't give informed consent to either course of action.   So I think a more relevant set of ethics to apply is simply the question: does it *harm* the animal? This is similar to what we'd do with children. We make kids go to school even if they don't want to, because it's good for them. We make kids stop eating candy even if they like it because too much candy is bad for them. We certainly don't have sex with kids because that will *really* mess them up, and that's bad. Problem solved.  Except that with animals, that's not quite the case, because I think it's harder to establish that some form of sexual contact with an animal constitutes harm in and of itself. This might strike some people as crazy and inappropriate to say, but even Peter Singer has written a short essay in which he agrees with this. The paradigm example given is a woman who gets off while riding a horse because the motion of the horse sexually stimulates her. While that's... kind of gross, I think you'd have a hard time arguing this is in any way harmful to the horse. I doubt the horse cares or notices one way or another anymore than your dog cares if you masturbate in front of it. We might feel uncomfortable about the idea, but it's difficult to say that it's wrong on any grounds of animal welfare. In fact, we kind of manipulate the sexual lives of animals a lot, up to and including literally physically shoving sperm inside them because we breed animals. So thinking rationally about it, it's hard to say that bestiality is wrong per se.   But should it still be illegal anyway? Well, we shouldn't make something illegal just because it's gross. Some people like eating poop and get off to it. That's... super gross, but I don't think it should be illegal. I just don't want to see or hear about it. So should we treat bestiality the same?  In this case, I'd say no because animals are basically helpless. Even though I think you can come up with examples of situations where having sex with animals isn't harmful to the animal, there are so, so many situations where it is, and if anything is a universal human trait it's the abuse of power. At the very least, it should be pretty strongly socially discouraged just because of that. If bestiality were widely accepted, that would probably result in bad consequences for animals because have you seen what people do to animals *now*? Bestiality being accepted makes me think of news stories like the orangutan that was forced to be a prostitute which makes me feel awful in a way I can't really put into words. The question of whether it should be illegal or not should be an issue of whether existing animal cruelty laws are sufficient to protect animals.   So in short, while I think you have a point, your last sentence is a perfectly good reason to make bestiality illegal. You don't need to make it illegal because it's gross- you can just make it illegal because public acceptance of bestiality would definitely lead to more animal abuse even if not every individual case of it necessarily is.","human_ref_B":"So the best argument I've figured for this goes like this:  Yes, an animal can indicate that it wants sex, but so can a teenager (13+). The reason we don't allow that is both kids and animals don't have the tools to escape abusive relationships, and any relationship with a human adult is by nature going to have a massive power dynamic.  There are some flaws in this argument. One is that larger animals (cows, horses) would probably be able to beat the shit out of a human if given the motivation and chance. However dogs especially are unlikely to use force even in that situation   I also suspect that most people do dislike it on gut feeling, that's disgusting, sanitation type grounds","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6084.0,"score_ratio":1.2727272727}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eygbw9i","c_root_id_B":"eyfs4um","created_at_utc_A":1567066221,"created_at_utc_B":1567054028,"score_A":42,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"I think it's slightly more complex than this because there is a sense in which animals can clearly consent and a sense in which animals clearly cannot consent.   If we mean consent as in an animal can agree or disagree with a course of action, it's pretty obvious that animals can consent. Anyone with a working brain who has ever interacted with any vertebrate for more than 10 minutes will notice that animals appear to be okay with some things and not okay with other things. Anyone who has owned a pet will to some degree learn to read their pet's body language and have a pretty good guess of exactly what the animal wants and doesn't want to do. So in this sense of consent, you're absolutely right.  However, there's a sense in which animals can't consent, which is what people who use this argument tend to mean. Animals certainly can't give *informed* consent because they don't understand what \"sex\" is on the same level that humans do. Saying an animal can give informed consent because it appears happy to do a course of activity is as meaningless as saying a dog has signed a legal contract because it appeared happy to affix its paw print in the space reserved for a signature. When we describe ethical sexual relations, we generally want both parties to really, fully understand all the implications, and animals definitely can't do that.  But I actually agree with your point anyway. The second definition is pretty silly to apply to human-animal relations because \"sex\" isn't a super special secret class of actions. If animals can't give informed consent for one activity, sex, they can't give informed consent for *any* activity. So if \"informed consent\" were the standard for ethical human-animal relations, literally anything we do with animals would be wrong, whether or not they appear to like it. It would be just as wrong to feed your dog a treat as to stab it in the face since it can't give informed consent to either course of action.   So I think a more relevant set of ethics to apply is simply the question: does it *harm* the animal? This is similar to what we'd do with children. We make kids go to school even if they don't want to, because it's good for them. We make kids stop eating candy even if they like it because too much candy is bad for them. We certainly don't have sex with kids because that will *really* mess them up, and that's bad. Problem solved.  Except that with animals, that's not quite the case, because I think it's harder to establish that some form of sexual contact with an animal constitutes harm in and of itself. This might strike some people as crazy and inappropriate to say, but even Peter Singer has written a short essay in which he agrees with this. The paradigm example given is a woman who gets off while riding a horse because the motion of the horse sexually stimulates her. While that's... kind of gross, I think you'd have a hard time arguing this is in any way harmful to the horse. I doubt the horse cares or notices one way or another anymore than your dog cares if you masturbate in front of it. We might feel uncomfortable about the idea, but it's difficult to say that it's wrong on any grounds of animal welfare. In fact, we kind of manipulate the sexual lives of animals a lot, up to and including literally physically shoving sperm inside them because we breed animals. So thinking rationally about it, it's hard to say that bestiality is wrong per se.   But should it still be illegal anyway? Well, we shouldn't make something illegal just because it's gross. Some people like eating poop and get off to it. That's... super gross, but I don't think it should be illegal. I just don't want to see or hear about it. So should we treat bestiality the same?  In this case, I'd say no because animals are basically helpless. Even though I think you can come up with examples of situations where having sex with animals isn't harmful to the animal, there are so, so many situations where it is, and if anything is a universal human trait it's the abuse of power. At the very least, it should be pretty strongly socially discouraged just because of that. If bestiality were widely accepted, that would probably result in bad consequences for animals because have you seen what people do to animals *now*? Bestiality being accepted makes me think of news stories like the orangutan that was forced to be a prostitute which makes me feel awful in a way I can't really put into words. The question of whether it should be illegal or not should be an issue of whether existing animal cruelty laws are sufficient to protect animals.   So in short, while I think you have a point, your last sentence is a perfectly good reason to make bestiality illegal. You don't need to make it illegal because it's gross- you can just make it illegal because public acceptance of bestiality would definitely lead to more animal abuse even if not every individual case of it necessarily is.","human_ref_B":"If a kid let's say like 6 tries to force themselves on you and you have sex with them is that wrong on your part?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12193.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyfx801","c_root_id_B":"eygbw9i","created_at_utc_A":1567056884,"created_at_utc_B":1567066221,"score_A":26,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"animals dont have legal personhood so they cant rape or be raped. The reason you cant have sex with them has nothing to do with rape or consent.   Not sure if you find necrophilia disgusting? It is legal in some states. It's illegal in others but not because corpses cant consent. You might find sex with animals disgusting and its illegal but sex with animal corpses is even more disgusting but its not illegal. So the legality does not have to do with disgust","human_ref_B":"I think it's slightly more complex than this because there is a sense in which animals can clearly consent and a sense in which animals clearly cannot consent.   If we mean consent as in an animal can agree or disagree with a course of action, it's pretty obvious that animals can consent. Anyone with a working brain who has ever interacted with any vertebrate for more than 10 minutes will notice that animals appear to be okay with some things and not okay with other things. Anyone who has owned a pet will to some degree learn to read their pet's body language and have a pretty good guess of exactly what the animal wants and doesn't want to do. So in this sense of consent, you're absolutely right.  However, there's a sense in which animals can't consent, which is what people who use this argument tend to mean. Animals certainly can't give *informed* consent because they don't understand what \"sex\" is on the same level that humans do. Saying an animal can give informed consent because it appears happy to do a course of activity is as meaningless as saying a dog has signed a legal contract because it appeared happy to affix its paw print in the space reserved for a signature. When we describe ethical sexual relations, we generally want both parties to really, fully understand all the implications, and animals definitely can't do that.  But I actually agree with your point anyway. The second definition is pretty silly to apply to human-animal relations because \"sex\" isn't a super special secret class of actions. If animals can't give informed consent for one activity, sex, they can't give informed consent for *any* activity. So if \"informed consent\" were the standard for ethical human-animal relations, literally anything we do with animals would be wrong, whether or not they appear to like it. It would be just as wrong to feed your dog a treat as to stab it in the face since it can't give informed consent to either course of action.   So I think a more relevant set of ethics to apply is simply the question: does it *harm* the animal? This is similar to what we'd do with children. We make kids go to school even if they don't want to, because it's good for them. We make kids stop eating candy even if they like it because too much candy is bad for them. We certainly don't have sex with kids because that will *really* mess them up, and that's bad. Problem solved.  Except that with animals, that's not quite the case, because I think it's harder to establish that some form of sexual contact with an animal constitutes harm in and of itself. This might strike some people as crazy and inappropriate to say, but even Peter Singer has written a short essay in which he agrees with this. The paradigm example given is a woman who gets off while riding a horse because the motion of the horse sexually stimulates her. While that's... kind of gross, I think you'd have a hard time arguing this is in any way harmful to the horse. I doubt the horse cares or notices one way or another anymore than your dog cares if you masturbate in front of it. We might feel uncomfortable about the idea, but it's difficult to say that it's wrong on any grounds of animal welfare. In fact, we kind of manipulate the sexual lives of animals a lot, up to and including literally physically shoving sperm inside them because we breed animals. So thinking rationally about it, it's hard to say that bestiality is wrong per se.   But should it still be illegal anyway? Well, we shouldn't make something illegal just because it's gross. Some people like eating poop and get off to it. That's... super gross, but I don't think it should be illegal. I just don't want to see or hear about it. So should we treat bestiality the same?  In this case, I'd say no because animals are basically helpless. Even though I think you can come up with examples of situations where having sex with animals isn't harmful to the animal, there are so, so many situations where it is, and if anything is a universal human trait it's the abuse of power. At the very least, it should be pretty strongly socially discouraged just because of that. If bestiality were widely accepted, that would probably result in bad consequences for animals because have you seen what people do to animals *now*? Bestiality being accepted makes me think of news stories like the orangutan that was forced to be a prostitute which makes me feel awful in a way I can't really put into words. The question of whether it should be illegal or not should be an issue of whether existing animal cruelty laws are sufficient to protect animals.   So in short, while I think you have a point, your last sentence is a perfectly good reason to make bestiality illegal. You don't need to make it illegal because it's gross- you can just make it illegal because public acceptance of bestiality would definitely lead to more animal abuse even if not every individual case of it necessarily is.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9337.0,"score_ratio":1.6153846154}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyg03d4","c_root_id_B":"eyg2ovs","created_at_utc_A":1567058547,"created_at_utc_B":1567060137,"score_A":32,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"I think that you have a very American view on the topic of \"consent\". Which means that the word and many behaviours and norms around it make no sense at all and contradict themself. As a dog breeder I can say that dogs can give consent. The female dog will not let any male mate with her unless she is ovulating. So dogs and other social animals have a concept of consent and live it.   So your thesis that \"animals cannot consent to sex\" is nonsense is right. But for other reasons as the reasoning you provide in your comment.","human_ref_B":"So the best argument I've figured for this goes like this:  Yes, an animal can indicate that it wants sex, but so can a teenager (13+). The reason we don't allow that is both kids and animals don't have the tools to escape abusive relationships, and any relationship with a human adult is by nature going to have a massive power dynamic.  There are some flaws in this argument. One is that larger animals (cows, horses) would probably be able to beat the shit out of a human if given the motivation and chance. However dogs especially are unlikely to use force even in that situation   I also suspect that most people do dislike it on gut feeling, that's disgusting, sanitation type grounds","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1590.0,"score_ratio":1.03125}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyg03d4","c_root_id_B":"eyfs4um","created_at_utc_A":1567058547,"created_at_utc_B":1567054028,"score_A":32,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"I think that you have a very American view on the topic of \"consent\". Which means that the word and many behaviours and norms around it make no sense at all and contradict themself. As a dog breeder I can say that dogs can give consent. The female dog will not let any male mate with her unless she is ovulating. So dogs and other social animals have a concept of consent and live it.   So your thesis that \"animals cannot consent to sex\" is nonsense is right. But for other reasons as the reasoning you provide in your comment.","human_ref_B":"If a kid let's say like 6 tries to force themselves on you and you have sex with them is that wrong on your part?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4519.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyg03d4","c_root_id_B":"eyfx801","created_at_utc_A":1567058547,"created_at_utc_B":1567056884,"score_A":32,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"I think that you have a very American view on the topic of \"consent\". Which means that the word and many behaviours and norms around it make no sense at all and contradict themself. As a dog breeder I can say that dogs can give consent. The female dog will not let any male mate with her unless she is ovulating. So dogs and other social animals have a concept of consent and live it.   So your thesis that \"animals cannot consent to sex\" is nonsense is right. But for other reasons as the reasoning you provide in your comment.","human_ref_B":"animals dont have legal personhood so they cant rape or be raped. The reason you cant have sex with them has nothing to do with rape or consent.   Not sure if you find necrophilia disgusting? It is legal in some states. It's illegal in others but not because corpses cant consent. You might find sex with animals disgusting and its illegal but sex with animal corpses is even more disgusting but its not illegal. So the legality does not have to do with disgust","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1663.0,"score_ratio":1.2307692308}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyfs4um","c_root_id_B":"eyg2ovs","created_at_utc_A":1567054028,"created_at_utc_B":1567060137,"score_A":28,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"If a kid let's say like 6 tries to force themselves on you and you have sex with them is that wrong on your part?","human_ref_B":"So the best argument I've figured for this goes like this:  Yes, an animal can indicate that it wants sex, but so can a teenager (13+). The reason we don't allow that is both kids and animals don't have the tools to escape abusive relationships, and any relationship with a human adult is by nature going to have a massive power dynamic.  There are some flaws in this argument. One is that larger animals (cows, horses) would probably be able to beat the shit out of a human if given the motivation and chance. However dogs especially are unlikely to use force even in that situation   I also suspect that most people do dislike it on gut feeling, that's disgusting, sanitation type grounds","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6109.0,"score_ratio":1.1785714286}
+{"post_id":"cww2ef","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: The logic that beastiality is wrong because \"animals cannot consent to sex\" makes no sense at all. We should just admit it's illegal because it's disgusting. Gross post warning  I'm not sure if it's even in the law that it's illegal because \"animals can't consent,\" but I often hear people say that's why it's wrong. But it seems a little ridiculous to claim animals can't consent.  Here's an example. Let's say a silverback gorilla forces a human to have sex with it, against the human's will. The gorilla rapes the human. But what happens if suddenly, the human changes their mind and consents. Is the human suddenly raping the gorilla, because the gorilla cannot consent? If the human came back a week later and the same event occured, but the human consents at the begining this time, did the human rape the gorilla?   I think beastiality should be illegal ONLY because it disgusts me, as ridiculous as that sounds. No ethical or moral basis to it. And to protect animals from *actually* getting raped by humans, which certainly happens unfortunately.","c_root_id_A":"eyg2ovs","c_root_id_B":"eyfx801","created_at_utc_A":1567060137,"created_at_utc_B":1567056884,"score_A":33,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"So the best argument I've figured for this goes like this:  Yes, an animal can indicate that it wants sex, but so can a teenager (13+). The reason we don't allow that is both kids and animals don't have the tools to escape abusive relationships, and any relationship with a human adult is by nature going to have a massive power dynamic.  There are some flaws in this argument. One is that larger animals (cows, horses) would probably be able to beat the shit out of a human if given the motivation and chance. However dogs especially are unlikely to use force even in that situation   I also suspect that most people do dislike it on gut feeling, that's disgusting, sanitation type grounds","human_ref_B":"animals dont have legal personhood so they cant rape or be raped. The reason you cant have sex with them has nothing to do with rape or consent.   Not sure if you find necrophilia disgusting? It is legal in some states. It's illegal in others but not because corpses cant consent. You might find sex with animals disgusting and its illegal but sex with animal corpses is even more disgusting but its not illegal. So the legality does not have to do with disgust","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3253.0,"score_ratio":1.2692307692}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ietx0w4","c_root_id_B":"ieu3gqe","created_at_utc_A":1656950029,"created_at_utc_B":1656952705,"score_A":314,"score_B":328,"human_ref_A":">somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive  The right is to not be murdered. A person not donating an organ to another is not murder.","human_ref_B":"I think your argument misses the importance that pro-lifers place on individual responsibility. Many people believe that a pregnant mother who conceives a healthy, unborn child via consensual intercourse has implicitly accepted the responsibility to carry that child to term (barring any serious medical complications). It's not just about the value of the unborn life--it's about the mother's choice to deal with the natural consequences of sexual intercourse. A pro-lifer may believe that a child in utero has some entitlement to the support of a woman's body because the woman voluntarily partcipated in the child's conception. I believe this is the same ethical justification that the State uses to justify garnering an absentee father's wages for child support: the fact that he doesn't want to pay for the child's expenses is irrelevant in the face of his responsibility to it.  This same direct relationship of obligation does not exist between a potential organ donor and organ recipient. Especially when we're discussing the recently deceased, the relation between donor and recipient is purely incidental.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2676.0,"score_ratio":1.0445859873}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"iety4qw","c_root_id_B":"ieu3gqe","created_at_utc_A":1656950500,"created_at_utc_B":1656952705,"score_A":110,"score_B":328,"human_ref_A":"Not really. People who are \"pro mandatory conception\" should be \"pro mandatory organ donation\". People who believe you have no responsibility to give your body to someone else ***but*** *once you have done so,* you cannot take it back should be \"pro no-take-backsies on organ donation.\" Which, to my knowledge, they are. I've never met a person in favour of being allowed to take your organs back after you've donated them.","human_ref_B":"I think your argument misses the importance that pro-lifers place on individual responsibility. Many people believe that a pregnant mother who conceives a healthy, unborn child via consensual intercourse has implicitly accepted the responsibility to carry that child to term (barring any serious medical complications). It's not just about the value of the unborn life--it's about the mother's choice to deal with the natural consequences of sexual intercourse. A pro-lifer may believe that a child in utero has some entitlement to the support of a woman's body because the woman voluntarily partcipated in the child's conception. I believe this is the same ethical justification that the State uses to justify garnering an absentee father's wages for child support: the fact that he doesn't want to pay for the child's expenses is irrelevant in the face of his responsibility to it.  This same direct relationship of obligation does not exist between a potential organ donor and organ recipient. Especially when we're discussing the recently deceased, the relation between donor and recipient is purely incidental.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2205.0,"score_ratio":2.9818181818}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ietwxs9","c_root_id_B":"ieu3gqe","created_at_utc_A":1656949992,"created_at_utc_B":1656952705,"score_A":56,"score_B":328,"human_ref_A":"A key difference between organ donation and abortion is the intervening action being taken. In both cases, you are going against what would occur naturally. There\u2019s a difference between saying you should not be allowed to take a life and you should have to save a life. Just like laws make it illegal to murder someone, but not illegal to not save someone.","human_ref_B":"I think your argument misses the importance that pro-lifers place on individual responsibility. Many people believe that a pregnant mother who conceives a healthy, unborn child via consensual intercourse has implicitly accepted the responsibility to carry that child to term (barring any serious medical complications). It's not just about the value of the unborn life--it's about the mother's choice to deal with the natural consequences of sexual intercourse. A pro-lifer may believe that a child in utero has some entitlement to the support of a woman's body because the woman voluntarily partcipated in the child's conception. I believe this is the same ethical justification that the State uses to justify garnering an absentee father's wages for child support: the fact that he doesn't want to pay for the child's expenses is irrelevant in the face of his responsibility to it.  This same direct relationship of obligation does not exist between a potential organ donor and organ recipient. Especially when we're discussing the recently deceased, the relation between donor and recipient is purely incidental.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2713.0,"score_ratio":5.8571428571}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ietx0w4","c_root_id_B":"ietwxs9","created_at_utc_A":1656950029,"created_at_utc_B":1656949992,"score_A":314,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":">somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive  The right is to not be murdered. A person not donating an organ to another is not murder.","human_ref_B":"A key difference between organ donation and abortion is the intervening action being taken. In both cases, you are going against what would occur naturally. There\u2019s a difference between saying you should not be allowed to take a life and you should have to save a life. Just like laws make it illegal to murder someone, but not illegal to not save someone.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":37.0,"score_ratio":5.6071428571}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ietwxs9","c_root_id_B":"iety4qw","created_at_utc_A":1656949992,"created_at_utc_B":1656950500,"score_A":56,"score_B":110,"human_ref_A":"A key difference between organ donation and abortion is the intervening action being taken. In both cases, you are going against what would occur naturally. There\u2019s a difference between saying you should not be allowed to take a life and you should have to save a life. Just like laws make it illegal to murder someone, but not illegal to not save someone.","human_ref_B":"Not really. People who are \"pro mandatory conception\" should be \"pro mandatory organ donation\". People who believe you have no responsibility to give your body to someone else ***but*** *once you have done so,* you cannot take it back should be \"pro no-take-backsies on organ donation.\" Which, to my knowledge, they are. I've never met a person in favour of being allowed to take your organs back after you've donated them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":508.0,"score_ratio":1.9642857143}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ietwxs9","c_root_id_B":"ieu9crr","created_at_utc_A":1656949992,"created_at_utc_B":1656955144,"score_A":56,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"A key difference between organ donation and abortion is the intervening action being taken. In both cases, you are going against what would occur naturally. There\u2019s a difference between saying you should not be allowed to take a life and you should have to save a life. Just like laws make it illegal to murder someone, but not illegal to not save someone.","human_ref_B":"There are so many CMVs that follow this exact pattern. *If you believe x, you must also believe y*, where both x and y are reduced to a single overlapping dimension and we\u2019re all supposed to play pretend that one dimension encapsulates people\u2019s points of view accurately. Just no.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5152.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ieu9crr","c_root_id_B":"ieu8ten","created_at_utc_A":1656955144,"created_at_utc_B":1656954920,"score_A":64,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"There are so many CMVs that follow this exact pattern. *If you believe x, you must also believe y*, where both x and y are reduced to a single overlapping dimension and we\u2019re all supposed to play pretend that one dimension encapsulates people\u2019s points of view accurately. Just no.","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s the famous trolley social experiment that proposes if 4 people are going to be run over by a trolley, but you could switch the tracks and make only 1 die, should you switch it? Some may say yea, some may say no.  There is also a similar dilemma of a surgeon who has 4 people with organ failure, and a healthy match wake into the hospital. Should the surgeon kill the one to save the four? Is it the same?  The reason they are NOT the same, is that for the surgeon it is a requirement for the one person to die. I the trolley scenario, it would technically be possible to save everyone.   This relates to your proposition because donating organs is actively saving someone. Being \u201cpro-life\u201d is not about actively saving someone, is about NOT actively killing someone.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":224.0,"score_ratio":4.2666666667}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ieuc86f","c_root_id_B":"ieu8ten","created_at_utc_A":1656956329,"created_at_utc_B":1656954920,"score_A":46,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"You have 3 problems on your view that I can see.  Firstly, you have **decided** what pro-life people believe, you decided to phrase it in a way that makes it easier for you. \"One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.\" While this may absolutely be the case for some, you can't say this is what all pro-life people believe, what if they believe that people who had consensual sex should own up to the consequences? That's another real belief, or maybe they disagree with abortions for the simple reason they dont want to fund it with tax money? There's so many diverse beliefs on that side of the argument, and you **decided** to boil it down to the one that makes it easier for yourself.  Secondly, even by your description of what all pro-life people supposedly believe, it's just not the same. An abortion is an intervention to **end** a potential life, and donating organs is an intervention to **save** a life. And people who are pro-life can have a myriad of reasons to not approve of organ donation, namely personal religious reasons, or for example, some people even have the belief that registered organ donors recieve less care because doctors want to harvest them, as supersticious as this is... They are not really being hypocritical. Even if people believe the argument that **you are assigning them** there's multiple reasons to not want to donate your organs.  Thirdly, and finally, Even if I have not managed to convince you in the first two points (I hope I was) we reach something I think is boring and might be described as semantic, but necessary nonetheless: No one \"should\" believe anything, the fact that you and I (who agree on abortion and organ donation, by the way) could argue endlessly on the beliefs of pro-life people and what they are, on the belief of organ donation, on the similarities of both, etc. Should indicate to you that this is very very subjective, and this is between two people who literally agree on it, now imagine with someone who doesn't agree with you? Which is why I think it's incorrect to assume people should think anything other than what they actually believe, even if YOU think it makes sense, you're simply not them. I also feel like it's a bad idea to tie up two debates such as abortion and organ donation like this, stop assigning sides to each, pro life isn't forced to defend organ donation, and pro choice isn't forced to defend the refusal of it, people are extremely diverse, and you should do your best to not simplify things just to make arguments.","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s the famous trolley social experiment that proposes if 4 people are going to be run over by a trolley, but you could switch the tracks and make only 1 die, should you switch it? Some may say yea, some may say no.  There is also a similar dilemma of a surgeon who has 4 people with organ failure, and a healthy match wake into the hospital. Should the surgeon kill the one to save the four? Is it the same?  The reason they are NOT the same, is that for the surgeon it is a requirement for the one person to die. I the trolley scenario, it would technically be possible to save everyone.   This relates to your proposition because donating organs is actively saving someone. Being \u201cpro-life\u201d is not about actively saving someone, is about NOT actively killing someone.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1409.0,"score_ratio":3.0666666667}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ieuc86f","c_root_id_B":"ieuan49","created_at_utc_A":1656956329,"created_at_utc_B":1656955675,"score_A":46,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"You have 3 problems on your view that I can see.  Firstly, you have **decided** what pro-life people believe, you decided to phrase it in a way that makes it easier for you. \"One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.\" While this may absolutely be the case for some, you can't say this is what all pro-life people believe, what if they believe that people who had consensual sex should own up to the consequences? That's another real belief, or maybe they disagree with abortions for the simple reason they dont want to fund it with tax money? There's so many diverse beliefs on that side of the argument, and you **decided** to boil it down to the one that makes it easier for yourself.  Secondly, even by your description of what all pro-life people supposedly believe, it's just not the same. An abortion is an intervention to **end** a potential life, and donating organs is an intervention to **save** a life. And people who are pro-life can have a myriad of reasons to not approve of organ donation, namely personal religious reasons, or for example, some people even have the belief that registered organ donors recieve less care because doctors want to harvest them, as supersticious as this is... They are not really being hypocritical. Even if people believe the argument that **you are assigning them** there's multiple reasons to not want to donate your organs.  Thirdly, and finally, Even if I have not managed to convince you in the first two points (I hope I was) we reach something I think is boring and might be described as semantic, but necessary nonetheless: No one \"should\" believe anything, the fact that you and I (who agree on abortion and organ donation, by the way) could argue endlessly on the beliefs of pro-life people and what they are, on the belief of organ donation, on the similarities of both, etc. Should indicate to you that this is very very subjective, and this is between two people who literally agree on it, now imagine with someone who doesn't agree with you? Which is why I think it's incorrect to assume people should think anything other than what they actually believe, even if YOU think it makes sense, you're simply not them. I also feel like it's a bad idea to tie up two debates such as abortion and organ donation like this, stop assigning sides to each, pro life isn't forced to defend organ donation, and pro choice isn't forced to defend the refusal of it, people are extremely diverse, and you should do your best to not simplify things just to make arguments.","human_ref_B":"When you have sex with someone, you implicitly enter into a contract to have some level of care for any resulting life (assuming you willingly had sex). This is why men have to pay child support and why it's wrong for a pregnant woman to drink excessively.  There's not a similar implicit contract with a healthy person and a person who needs an organ. So there are relevant ethical differences and one can be pro-life without supporting compulsory organ donation.  If I agreed to give an organ in exchange for something then tried to back out after getting that thing, I think the situations would be much more similar.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":654.0,"score_ratio":3.0666666667}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ieu8ten","c_root_id_B":"ieuz5ad","created_at_utc_A":1656954920,"created_at_utc_B":1656966208,"score_A":15,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"There\u2019s the famous trolley social experiment that proposes if 4 people are going to be run over by a trolley, but you could switch the tracks and make only 1 die, should you switch it? Some may say yea, some may say no.  There is also a similar dilemma of a surgeon who has 4 people with organ failure, and a healthy match wake into the hospital. Should the surgeon kill the one to save the four? Is it the same?  The reason they are NOT the same, is that for the surgeon it is a requirement for the one person to die. I the trolley scenario, it would technically be possible to save everyone.   This relates to your proposition because donating organs is actively saving someone. Being \u201cpro-life\u201d is not about actively saving someone, is about NOT actively killing someone.","human_ref_B":"> One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.  That is NOT the core argument of pro-lifers, your statement is literally the caricature of the pro-life stance.   The key moral distinction between what you think the pro-life stance is, and the actual stance, is that pro-lifers aren't telling women they cant make decisions about their body - they are telling women that the right to make decisions about their own body does not endow them with the right to take another life. those are two completely morally distinct statements; one of which is immoral in nature, and the other of which is morally consistent across our legal framework; that no right extends into allowing you to commit murder. For example - you cant yell religious freedom, as they go and stone homosexuals in the street. there is only one right that extends to allowing a person to take a life - and that is in the preservation of other life - i.e. Self defense, which we dont classifiy as murder.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11288.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ieuz5ad","c_root_id_B":"ieuan49","created_at_utc_A":1656966208,"created_at_utc_B":1656955675,"score_A":18,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"> One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.  That is NOT the core argument of pro-lifers, your statement is literally the caricature of the pro-life stance.   The key moral distinction between what you think the pro-life stance is, and the actual stance, is that pro-lifers aren't telling women they cant make decisions about their body - they are telling women that the right to make decisions about their own body does not endow them with the right to take another life. those are two completely morally distinct statements; one of which is immoral in nature, and the other of which is morally consistent across our legal framework; that no right extends into allowing you to commit murder. For example - you cant yell religious freedom, as they go and stone homosexuals in the street. there is only one right that extends to allowing a person to take a life - and that is in the preservation of other life - i.e. Self defense, which we dont classifiy as murder.","human_ref_B":"When you have sex with someone, you implicitly enter into a contract to have some level of care for any resulting life (assuming you willingly had sex). This is why men have to pay child support and why it's wrong for a pregnant woman to drink excessively.  There's not a similar implicit contract with a healthy person and a person who needs an organ. So there are relevant ethical differences and one can be pro-life without supporting compulsory organ donation.  If I agreed to give an organ in exchange for something then tried to back out after getting that thing, I think the situations would be much more similar.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10533.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ievwzd9","c_root_id_B":"ieu8ten","created_at_utc_A":1656981893,"created_at_utc_B":1656954920,"score_A":16,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I feel like you aren't thinking big enough.  See the thing is, forcible gestation, involves the harvest of the host's tissues, solely for the benefit of the future human. There is zero benefit to the host. The host loses energy, tissue, bone, blood, parts of her body. That damage is permanent. It can also leave her unable to have children when she actually wants them, thus destroying the potential for a welcome future child.  The closest similar thing that I can think of, would be bone marrow donation. It's painful, causes permanent damage to the donor's bones, poses a (reasonably small) risk of serious injury and death, and can give life to an existing human being who will almost certainly die without it. Seems  similar enough to me.  But that's unfortunately not what pro-life people care about anyway. They don't care about women's lives, mental or physical wellbeing, or reproductive autonomy. Hell they don't even give a shit about the future babies they are supposedly saving. They also don't really care to save lives. If they did, there wouldn't be 400,000 + children in US foster care. There wouldn't be arguments about funding after-school programs, there would be no families struggling to keep their children fed, clothed, educated, housed, etc. And there would never be a shortage of organ and tissue donors.  This is an issue involving a group of people whose moral convictions crumble to dust when they are faced with any prospect of hardship or personal sacrifice.","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s the famous trolley social experiment that proposes if 4 people are going to be run over by a trolley, but you could switch the tracks and make only 1 die, should you switch it? Some may say yea, some may say no.  There is also a similar dilemma of a surgeon who has 4 people with organ failure, and a healthy match wake into the hospital. Should the surgeon kill the one to save the four? Is it the same?  The reason they are NOT the same, is that for the surgeon it is a requirement for the one person to die. I the trolley scenario, it would technically be possible to save everyone.   This relates to your proposition because donating organs is actively saving someone. Being \u201cpro-life\u201d is not about actively saving someone, is about NOT actively killing someone.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26973.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667}
+{"post_id":"vracnh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"cmv: people who are pro-life should also support mandatory organ donation One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.   I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.   Both arguments have a very similar structure.  (Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.","c_root_id_A":"ievwzd9","c_root_id_B":"ieuan49","created_at_utc_A":1656981893,"created_at_utc_B":1656955675,"score_A":16,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I feel like you aren't thinking big enough.  See the thing is, forcible gestation, involves the harvest of the host's tissues, solely for the benefit of the future human. There is zero benefit to the host. The host loses energy, tissue, bone, blood, parts of her body. That damage is permanent. It can also leave her unable to have children when she actually wants them, thus destroying the potential for a welcome future child.  The closest similar thing that I can think of, would be bone marrow donation. It's painful, causes permanent damage to the donor's bones, poses a (reasonably small) risk of serious injury and death, and can give life to an existing human being who will almost certainly die without it. Seems  similar enough to me.  But that's unfortunately not what pro-life people care about anyway. They don't care about women's lives, mental or physical wellbeing, or reproductive autonomy. Hell they don't even give a shit about the future babies they are supposedly saving. They also don't really care to save lives. If they did, there wouldn't be 400,000 + children in US foster care. There wouldn't be arguments about funding after-school programs, there would be no families struggling to keep their children fed, clothed, educated, housed, etc. And there would never be a shortage of organ and tissue donors.  This is an issue involving a group of people whose moral convictions crumble to dust when they are faced with any prospect of hardship or personal sacrifice.","human_ref_B":"When you have sex with someone, you implicitly enter into a contract to have some level of care for any resulting life (assuming you willingly had sex). This is why men have to pay child support and why it's wrong for a pregnant woman to drink excessively.  There's not a similar implicit contract with a healthy person and a person who needs an organ. So there are relevant ethical differences and one can be pro-life without supporting compulsory organ donation.  If I agreed to give an organ in exchange for something then tried to back out after getting that thing, I think the situations would be much more similar.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26218.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqskz2d","c_root_id_B":"hqsk1ik","created_at_utc_A":1641033186,"created_at_utc_B":1641032352,"score_A":576,"score_B":229,"human_ref_A":">He refuses to pay taxes  He avoids them like any other person would, well until this year. He purposefully sold stock and is set to pay the most taxes as an individual in history at about 11 billion dollars   >tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa.  This is just a false narrative spun out of control. His family did not own a mine, his dad just had a deal with an owner of one, and the money made from it was not given to Elon, as he and his father had a poor relationship. Read here","human_ref_B":">He refuses to pay taxes  All this \"Elon Misk has 300 billion dollar\" you see are his shares. He doesn't have the money in a bank account. And rising shares aren't taxable income, they are just shares at that point. So no, he isn't refusing to pay taxes, he just doesn't have to pay taxes on most of his networth.  >he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\"  That's just straight up wrong.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":834.0,"score_ratio":2.5152838428}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqskz2d","c_root_id_B":"hqsjvq4","created_at_utc_A":1641033186,"created_at_utc_B":1641032208,"score_A":576,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":">He refuses to pay taxes  He avoids them like any other person would, well until this year. He purposefully sold stock and is set to pay the most taxes as an individual in history at about 11 billion dollars   >tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa.  This is just a false narrative spun out of control. His family did not own a mine, his dad just had a deal with an owner of one, and the money made from it was not given to Elon, as he and his father had a poor relationship. Read here","human_ref_B":"If he refused to pay taxes he would be in jail and they would take what he owes. He pays what the tax code says he owes","labels":1,"seconds_difference":978.0,"score_ratio":25.0434782609}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqskz2d","c_root_id_B":"hqskgep","created_at_utc_A":1641033186,"created_at_utc_B":1641032720,"score_A":576,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":">He refuses to pay taxes  He avoids them like any other person would, well until this year. He purposefully sold stock and is set to pay the most taxes as an individual in history at about 11 billion dollars   >tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa.  This is just a false narrative spun out of control. His family did not own a mine, his dad just had a deal with an owner of one, and the money made from it was not given to Elon, as he and his father had a poor relationship. Read here","human_ref_B":">He refuses to pay taxes  Net worth and liquid assets are 2 different things. He did liquidate about $30B\\~ worth of Tesla stock and there isn't anyway to offload that.   >he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Like who? I don't think I have ever seen him just attack people out the blue. Usually they come at him 1st and at which point whatever he decides to reply with is fair game at that point.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":466.0,"score_ratio":38.4}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqsk1ik","c_root_id_B":"hqsq7eo","created_at_utc_A":1641032352,"created_at_utc_B":1641037908,"score_A":229,"score_B":315,"human_ref_A":">He refuses to pay taxes  All this \"Elon Misk has 300 billion dollar\" you see are his shares. He doesn't have the money in a bank account. And rising shares aren't taxable income, they are just shares at that point. So no, he isn't refusing to pay taxes, he just doesn't have to pay taxes on most of his networth.  >he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\"  That's just straight up wrong.","human_ref_B":"> He refuses to pay taxes  1. Elon Musk just paid the largest tax bill in American history. 2. Elon Musk doesn't want to pay taxes today because he is better at investing it than the government. If you gave him a dollar two years ago, he paid you back $20. If you paid a dollar of tax two years ago, politicians return back pennies. They put the money in their pocket, their friends pockets, or they squander it on stupid programs (such as an oversized military). Meanwhile, Musk's innovations are directly fighting climate change, enabling dirt cheap high speed satellite internet everywhere on the planet, etc. Meanwhile, the government is giving handouts to Ford and Comcast.   > he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Usually in response to people insulting him first.   > he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\"  Elon Musk helped create and legitimize meme culture in the first place. It used to be a fringe thing. Now the richest person on the planet is doing it. He was able to create it simply because he's much older than the young people who decided to copy him.  > he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself,   Yeah he did. He's literally an Ivy League trained rocket scientist. The only reason he didn't become a Stanford PhD is because he founded PayPal instead.   > he constantly makes false promises  He's not lying on purpose. He's trying to solve extremely difficult problems like climate change. He's bound to run into delays. But the stuff he has managed to accomplish, such as creating a reusable autonomous rocket or the fastest, safest, and greenest car in human history is truly amazing.   > is anti-union   Whether they're high school dropouts or Stanford engineers, his employees are the highest paid workers in America for their level of education. Unions are a response to crappy executives. Meanwhile, Tesla and SpaceX are currently ranked the number 1 and number 2 most desirable employers in America.  > self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa.  Plenty of rich kids never do anything. Musk used his resources to start PayPal and made over a hundred million dollars (far more than his parents ever had). Instead of retiring to a beach, he risked every penny he had on extremely risky businesses including an electric car company, a rocket company, and a solar power company. If those businesses failed, he would have ended up with millions of dollars of debt. Almost no one else in society is willing to take this risk.  Edit: I forgot to mention that he signed a pledge to donate at least half his money to charity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5556.0,"score_ratio":1.3755458515}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqsq7eo","c_root_id_B":"hqsoxtw","created_at_utc_A":1641037908,"created_at_utc_B":1641036776,"score_A":315,"score_B":88,"human_ref_A":"> He refuses to pay taxes  1. Elon Musk just paid the largest tax bill in American history. 2. Elon Musk doesn't want to pay taxes today because he is better at investing it than the government. If you gave him a dollar two years ago, he paid you back $20. If you paid a dollar of tax two years ago, politicians return back pennies. They put the money in their pocket, their friends pockets, or they squander it on stupid programs (such as an oversized military). Meanwhile, Musk's innovations are directly fighting climate change, enabling dirt cheap high speed satellite internet everywhere on the planet, etc. Meanwhile, the government is giving handouts to Ford and Comcast.   > he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Usually in response to people insulting him first.   > he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\"  Elon Musk helped create and legitimize meme culture in the first place. It used to be a fringe thing. Now the richest person on the planet is doing it. He was able to create it simply because he's much older than the young people who decided to copy him.  > he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself,   Yeah he did. He's literally an Ivy League trained rocket scientist. The only reason he didn't become a Stanford PhD is because he founded PayPal instead.   > he constantly makes false promises  He's not lying on purpose. He's trying to solve extremely difficult problems like climate change. He's bound to run into delays. But the stuff he has managed to accomplish, such as creating a reusable autonomous rocket or the fastest, safest, and greenest car in human history is truly amazing.   > is anti-union   Whether they're high school dropouts or Stanford engineers, his employees are the highest paid workers in America for their level of education. Unions are a response to crappy executives. Meanwhile, Tesla and SpaceX are currently ranked the number 1 and number 2 most desirable employers in America.  > self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa.  Plenty of rich kids never do anything. Musk used his resources to start PayPal and made over a hundred million dollars (far more than his parents ever had). Instead of retiring to a beach, he risked every penny he had on extremely risky businesses including an electric car company, a rocket company, and a solar power company. If those businesses failed, he would have ended up with millions of dollars of debt. Almost no one else in society is willing to take this risk.  Edit: I forgot to mention that he signed a pledge to donate at least half his money to charity.","human_ref_B":"Elon Musk isn't a hero, he's got ideas and visions and puts his effort where his mouth is.   He has contributed to a lot of the progress made by his companies, but he's very adamant on giving other people credit, I just watched this recent interview where he literally says \"People give me too much credit\":   https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=DxREm3s1scA&t=7180s   Still, he's been working a lot, sleeping at the office and really putting in the hours.   Being a groundbreaking tech entrepreneur is going to mean that your grand plans sometimes doesn't work out. Sometimes they'll be delayed, as for many things connected to him that has come to fruition. Sometimes it just won't pan out at all. That's not making \"false promises\".  While I do agree that he isn't worthy of worshipping or being called a hero(Then again, I don't think anyone is really), he has made a net positive impact on the world.   He didn't found Tesla, but he made Tesla into the company it is today and that company has spearheaded the transition into electric cars for the world.   You have gotten a lot of good arguments here, I hope you read them all. And watch the interview, it's good and fairly unpolished.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1132.0,"score_ratio":3.5795454545}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqsq7eo","c_root_id_B":"hqslxjb","created_at_utc_A":1641037908,"created_at_utc_B":1641034052,"score_A":315,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"> He refuses to pay taxes  1. Elon Musk just paid the largest tax bill in American history. 2. Elon Musk doesn't want to pay taxes today because he is better at investing it than the government. If you gave him a dollar two years ago, he paid you back $20. If you paid a dollar of tax two years ago, politicians return back pennies. They put the money in their pocket, their friends pockets, or they squander it on stupid programs (such as an oversized military). Meanwhile, Musk's innovations are directly fighting climate change, enabling dirt cheap high speed satellite internet everywhere on the planet, etc. Meanwhile, the government is giving handouts to Ford and Comcast.   > he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Usually in response to people insulting him first.   > he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\"  Elon Musk helped create and legitimize meme culture in the first place. It used to be a fringe thing. Now the richest person on the planet is doing it. He was able to create it simply because he's much older than the young people who decided to copy him.  > he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself,   Yeah he did. He's literally an Ivy League trained rocket scientist. The only reason he didn't become a Stanford PhD is because he founded PayPal instead.   > he constantly makes false promises  He's not lying on purpose. He's trying to solve extremely difficult problems like climate change. He's bound to run into delays. But the stuff he has managed to accomplish, such as creating a reusable autonomous rocket or the fastest, safest, and greenest car in human history is truly amazing.   > is anti-union   Whether they're high school dropouts or Stanford engineers, his employees are the highest paid workers in America for their level of education. Unions are a response to crappy executives. Meanwhile, Tesla and SpaceX are currently ranked the number 1 and number 2 most desirable employers in America.  > self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa.  Plenty of rich kids never do anything. Musk used his resources to start PayPal and made over a hundred million dollars (far more than his parents ever had). Instead of retiring to a beach, he risked every penny he had on extremely risky businesses including an electric car company, a rocket company, and a solar power company. If those businesses failed, he would have ended up with millions of dollars of debt. Almost no one else in society is willing to take this risk.  Edit: I forgot to mention that he signed a pledge to donate at least half his money to charity.","human_ref_B":"So let's go off the Oxford definition(definition from Google): \"a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.\"       Elon Musk's companies are pioneering self-driving AI, reusable rockets, and brain-computer interfaces. I would argue that especially SpaceX has made outstanding achievements in rocketry. Elon Musk is the CEO of SpaceX, so he should share in at least some of the credit for SpaceX's outstanding achievements. He didn't give up on the company when things were really bleak for it.       In terms of the nobility condition for heroism, Elon musk is kind of an asshole on twitter, and seems to be manipulative sometimes to his employees https:\/\/www.statesman.com\/story\/business\/2021\/12\/02\/elon-musk-spacex-engine-production-woes\/8825474002\/, but making humanity interplanetary is a noble goal, assuming you believe he is sincere about it.          So despite his obvious and public immaturity, he does seem to meet some of the qualifications. Maybe don't lick his boots though lol.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3856.0,"score_ratio":3.7058823529}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqsjvq4","c_root_id_B":"hqsq7eo","created_at_utc_A":1641032208,"created_at_utc_B":1641037908,"score_A":23,"score_B":315,"human_ref_A":"If he refused to pay taxes he would be in jail and they would take what he owes. He pays what the tax code says he owes","human_ref_B":"> He refuses to pay taxes  1. Elon Musk just paid the largest tax bill in American history. 2. Elon Musk doesn't want to pay taxes today because he is better at investing it than the government. If you gave him a dollar two years ago, he paid you back $20. If you paid a dollar of tax two years ago, politicians return back pennies. They put the money in their pocket, their friends pockets, or they squander it on stupid programs (such as an oversized military). Meanwhile, Musk's innovations are directly fighting climate change, enabling dirt cheap high speed satellite internet everywhere on the planet, etc. Meanwhile, the government is giving handouts to Ford and Comcast.   > he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Usually in response to people insulting him first.   > he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\"  Elon Musk helped create and legitimize meme culture in the first place. It used to be a fringe thing. Now the richest person on the planet is doing it. He was able to create it simply because he's much older than the young people who decided to copy him.  > he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself,   Yeah he did. He's literally an Ivy League trained rocket scientist. The only reason he didn't become a Stanford PhD is because he founded PayPal instead.   > he constantly makes false promises  He's not lying on purpose. He's trying to solve extremely difficult problems like climate change. He's bound to run into delays. But the stuff he has managed to accomplish, such as creating a reusable autonomous rocket or the fastest, safest, and greenest car in human history is truly amazing.   > is anti-union   Whether they're high school dropouts or Stanford engineers, his employees are the highest paid workers in America for their level of education. Unions are a response to crappy executives. Meanwhile, Tesla and SpaceX are currently ranked the number 1 and number 2 most desirable employers in America.  > self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa.  Plenty of rich kids never do anything. Musk used his resources to start PayPal and made over a hundred million dollars (far more than his parents ever had). Instead of retiring to a beach, he risked every penny he had on extremely risky businesses including an electric car company, a rocket company, and a solar power company. If those businesses failed, he would have ended up with millions of dollars of debt. Almost no one else in society is willing to take this risk.  Edit: I forgot to mention that he signed a pledge to donate at least half his money to charity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5700.0,"score_ratio":13.6956521739}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqskgep","c_root_id_B":"hqsq7eo","created_at_utc_A":1641032720,"created_at_utc_B":1641037908,"score_A":15,"score_B":315,"human_ref_A":">He refuses to pay taxes  Net worth and liquid assets are 2 different things. He did liquidate about $30B\\~ worth of Tesla stock and there isn't anyway to offload that.   >he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Like who? I don't think I have ever seen him just attack people out the blue. Usually they come at him 1st and at which point whatever he decides to reply with is fair game at that point.","human_ref_B":"> He refuses to pay taxes  1. Elon Musk just paid the largest tax bill in American history. 2. Elon Musk doesn't want to pay taxes today because he is better at investing it than the government. If you gave him a dollar two years ago, he paid you back $20. If you paid a dollar of tax two years ago, politicians return back pennies. They put the money in their pocket, their friends pockets, or they squander it on stupid programs (such as an oversized military). Meanwhile, Musk's innovations are directly fighting climate change, enabling dirt cheap high speed satellite internet everywhere on the planet, etc. Meanwhile, the government is giving handouts to Ford and Comcast.   > he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Usually in response to people insulting him first.   > he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\"  Elon Musk helped create and legitimize meme culture in the first place. It used to be a fringe thing. Now the richest person on the planet is doing it. He was able to create it simply because he's much older than the young people who decided to copy him.  > he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself,   Yeah he did. He's literally an Ivy League trained rocket scientist. The only reason he didn't become a Stanford PhD is because he founded PayPal instead.   > he constantly makes false promises  He's not lying on purpose. He's trying to solve extremely difficult problems like climate change. He's bound to run into delays. But the stuff he has managed to accomplish, such as creating a reusable autonomous rocket or the fastest, safest, and greenest car in human history is truly amazing.   > is anti-union   Whether they're high school dropouts or Stanford engineers, his employees are the highest paid workers in America for their level of education. Unions are a response to crappy executives. Meanwhile, Tesla and SpaceX are currently ranked the number 1 and number 2 most desirable employers in America.  > self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa.  Plenty of rich kids never do anything. Musk used his resources to start PayPal and made over a hundred million dollars (far more than his parents ever had). Instead of retiring to a beach, he risked every penny he had on extremely risky businesses including an electric car company, a rocket company, and a solar power company. If those businesses failed, he would have ended up with millions of dollars of debt. Almost no one else in society is willing to take this risk.  Edit: I forgot to mention that he signed a pledge to donate at least half his money to charity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5188.0,"score_ratio":21.0}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqsq5o5","c_root_id_B":"hqsq7eo","created_at_utc_A":1641037865,"created_at_utc_B":1641037908,"score_A":16,"score_B":315,"human_ref_A":"Wow, it's almost like he's a human being or something with all those human like behaviours he displays.","human_ref_B":"> He refuses to pay taxes  1. Elon Musk just paid the largest tax bill in American history. 2. Elon Musk doesn't want to pay taxes today because he is better at investing it than the government. If you gave him a dollar two years ago, he paid you back $20. If you paid a dollar of tax two years ago, politicians return back pennies. They put the money in their pocket, their friends pockets, or they squander it on stupid programs (such as an oversized military). Meanwhile, Musk's innovations are directly fighting climate change, enabling dirt cheap high speed satellite internet everywhere on the planet, etc. Meanwhile, the government is giving handouts to Ford and Comcast.   > he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Usually in response to people insulting him first.   > he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\"  Elon Musk helped create and legitimize meme culture in the first place. It used to be a fringe thing. Now the richest person on the planet is doing it. He was able to create it simply because he's much older than the young people who decided to copy him.  > he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself,   Yeah he did. He's literally an Ivy League trained rocket scientist. The only reason he didn't become a Stanford PhD is because he founded PayPal instead.   > he constantly makes false promises  He's not lying on purpose. He's trying to solve extremely difficult problems like climate change. He's bound to run into delays. But the stuff he has managed to accomplish, such as creating a reusable autonomous rocket or the fastest, safest, and greenest car in human history is truly amazing.   > is anti-union   Whether they're high school dropouts or Stanford engineers, his employees are the highest paid workers in America for their level of education. Unions are a response to crappy executives. Meanwhile, Tesla and SpaceX are currently ranked the number 1 and number 2 most desirable employers in America.  > self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa.  Plenty of rich kids never do anything. Musk used his resources to start PayPal and made over a hundred million dollars (far more than his parents ever had). Instead of retiring to a beach, he risked every penny he had on extremely risky businesses including an electric car company, a rocket company, and a solar power company. If those businesses failed, he would have ended up with millions of dollars of debt. Almost no one else in society is willing to take this risk.  Edit: I forgot to mention that he signed a pledge to donate at least half his money to charity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":43.0,"score_ratio":19.6875}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqsk1ik","c_root_id_B":"hqsjvq4","created_at_utc_A":1641032352,"created_at_utc_B":1641032208,"score_A":229,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":">He refuses to pay taxes  All this \"Elon Misk has 300 billion dollar\" you see are his shares. He doesn't have the money in a bank account. And rising shares aren't taxable income, they are just shares at that point. So no, he isn't refusing to pay taxes, he just doesn't have to pay taxes on most of his networth.  >he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\"  That's just straight up wrong.","human_ref_B":"If he refused to pay taxes he would be in jail and they would take what he owes. He pays what the tax code says he owes","labels":1,"seconds_difference":144.0,"score_ratio":9.9565217391}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqsoxtw","c_root_id_B":"hqslxjb","created_at_utc_A":1641036776,"created_at_utc_B":1641034052,"score_A":88,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"Elon Musk isn't a hero, he's got ideas and visions and puts his effort where his mouth is.   He has contributed to a lot of the progress made by his companies, but he's very adamant on giving other people credit, I just watched this recent interview where he literally says \"People give me too much credit\":   https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=DxREm3s1scA&t=7180s   Still, he's been working a lot, sleeping at the office and really putting in the hours.   Being a groundbreaking tech entrepreneur is going to mean that your grand plans sometimes doesn't work out. Sometimes they'll be delayed, as for many things connected to him that has come to fruition. Sometimes it just won't pan out at all. That's not making \"false promises\".  While I do agree that he isn't worthy of worshipping or being called a hero(Then again, I don't think anyone is really), he has made a net positive impact on the world.   He didn't found Tesla, but he made Tesla into the company it is today and that company has spearheaded the transition into electric cars for the world.   You have gotten a lot of good arguments here, I hope you read them all. And watch the interview, it's good and fairly unpolished.","human_ref_B":"So let's go off the Oxford definition(definition from Google): \"a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.\"       Elon Musk's companies are pioneering self-driving AI, reusable rockets, and brain-computer interfaces. I would argue that especially SpaceX has made outstanding achievements in rocketry. Elon Musk is the CEO of SpaceX, so he should share in at least some of the credit for SpaceX's outstanding achievements. He didn't give up on the company when things were really bleak for it.       In terms of the nobility condition for heroism, Elon musk is kind of an asshole on twitter, and seems to be manipulative sometimes to his employees https:\/\/www.statesman.com\/story\/business\/2021\/12\/02\/elon-musk-spacex-engine-production-woes\/8825474002\/, but making humanity interplanetary is a noble goal, assuming you believe he is sincere about it.          So despite his obvious and public immaturity, he does seem to meet some of the qualifications. Maybe don't lick his boots though lol.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2724.0,"score_ratio":1.0352941176}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqsjvq4","c_root_id_B":"hqsoxtw","created_at_utc_A":1641032208,"created_at_utc_B":1641036776,"score_A":23,"score_B":88,"human_ref_A":"If he refused to pay taxes he would be in jail and they would take what he owes. He pays what the tax code says he owes","human_ref_B":"Elon Musk isn't a hero, he's got ideas and visions and puts his effort where his mouth is.   He has contributed to a lot of the progress made by his companies, but he's very adamant on giving other people credit, I just watched this recent interview where he literally says \"People give me too much credit\":   https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=DxREm3s1scA&t=7180s   Still, he's been working a lot, sleeping at the office and really putting in the hours.   Being a groundbreaking tech entrepreneur is going to mean that your grand plans sometimes doesn't work out. Sometimes they'll be delayed, as for many things connected to him that has come to fruition. Sometimes it just won't pan out at all. That's not making \"false promises\".  While I do agree that he isn't worthy of worshipping or being called a hero(Then again, I don't think anyone is really), he has made a net positive impact on the world.   He didn't found Tesla, but he made Tesla into the company it is today and that company has spearheaded the transition into electric cars for the world.   You have gotten a lot of good arguments here, I hope you read them all. And watch the interview, it's good and fairly unpolished.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4568.0,"score_ratio":3.8260869565}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqsoxtw","c_root_id_B":"hqskgep","created_at_utc_A":1641036776,"created_at_utc_B":1641032720,"score_A":88,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Elon Musk isn't a hero, he's got ideas and visions and puts his effort where his mouth is.   He has contributed to a lot of the progress made by his companies, but he's very adamant on giving other people credit, I just watched this recent interview where he literally says \"People give me too much credit\":   https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=DxREm3s1scA&t=7180s   Still, he's been working a lot, sleeping at the office and really putting in the hours.   Being a groundbreaking tech entrepreneur is going to mean that your grand plans sometimes doesn't work out. Sometimes they'll be delayed, as for many things connected to him that has come to fruition. Sometimes it just won't pan out at all. That's not making \"false promises\".  While I do agree that he isn't worthy of worshipping or being called a hero(Then again, I don't think anyone is really), he has made a net positive impact on the world.   He didn't found Tesla, but he made Tesla into the company it is today and that company has spearheaded the transition into electric cars for the world.   You have gotten a lot of good arguments here, I hope you read them all. And watch the interview, it's good and fairly unpolished.","human_ref_B":">He refuses to pay taxes  Net worth and liquid assets are 2 different things. He did liquidate about $30B\\~ worth of Tesla stock and there isn't anyway to offload that.   >he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Like who? I don't think I have ever seen him just attack people out the blue. Usually they come at him 1st and at which point whatever he decides to reply with is fair game at that point.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4056.0,"score_ratio":5.8666666667}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqslxjb","c_root_id_B":"hqsjvq4","created_at_utc_A":1641034052,"created_at_utc_B":1641032208,"score_A":85,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"So let's go off the Oxford definition(definition from Google): \"a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.\"       Elon Musk's companies are pioneering self-driving AI, reusable rockets, and brain-computer interfaces. I would argue that especially SpaceX has made outstanding achievements in rocketry. Elon Musk is the CEO of SpaceX, so he should share in at least some of the credit for SpaceX's outstanding achievements. He didn't give up on the company when things were really bleak for it.       In terms of the nobility condition for heroism, Elon musk is kind of an asshole on twitter, and seems to be manipulative sometimes to his employees https:\/\/www.statesman.com\/story\/business\/2021\/12\/02\/elon-musk-spacex-engine-production-woes\/8825474002\/, but making humanity interplanetary is a noble goal, assuming you believe he is sincere about it.          So despite his obvious and public immaturity, he does seem to meet some of the qualifications. Maybe don't lick his boots though lol.","human_ref_B":"If he refused to pay taxes he would be in jail and they would take what he owes. He pays what the tax code says he owes","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1844.0,"score_ratio":3.6956521739}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqslxjb","c_root_id_B":"hqskgep","created_at_utc_A":1641034052,"created_at_utc_B":1641032720,"score_A":85,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"So let's go off the Oxford definition(definition from Google): \"a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.\"       Elon Musk's companies are pioneering self-driving AI, reusable rockets, and brain-computer interfaces. I would argue that especially SpaceX has made outstanding achievements in rocketry. Elon Musk is the CEO of SpaceX, so he should share in at least some of the credit for SpaceX's outstanding achievements. He didn't give up on the company when things were really bleak for it.       In terms of the nobility condition for heroism, Elon musk is kind of an asshole on twitter, and seems to be manipulative sometimes to his employees https:\/\/www.statesman.com\/story\/business\/2021\/12\/02\/elon-musk-spacex-engine-production-woes\/8825474002\/, but making humanity interplanetary is a noble goal, assuming you believe he is sincere about it.          So despite his obvious and public immaturity, he does seem to meet some of the qualifications. Maybe don't lick his boots though lol.","human_ref_B":">He refuses to pay taxes  Net worth and liquid assets are 2 different things. He did liquidate about $30B\\~ worth of Tesla stock and there isn't anyway to offload that.   >he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Like who? I don't think I have ever seen him just attack people out the blue. Usually they come at him 1st and at which point whatever he decides to reply with is fair game at that point.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1332.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqskgep","c_root_id_B":"hqsrcij","created_at_utc_A":1641032720,"created_at_utc_B":1641038906,"score_A":15,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":">He refuses to pay taxes  Net worth and liquid assets are 2 different things. He did liquidate about $30B\\~ worth of Tesla stock and there isn't anyway to offload that.   >he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Like who? I don't think I have ever seen him just attack people out the blue. Usually they come at him 1st and at which point whatever he decides to reply with is fair game at that point.","human_ref_B":"He refuses to pay taxes?  Can you show any examples, news articles showing his tax evasion?  If he was refusing to pay taxes he'd be in jail for tax evasion.  Not paying taxes you don't owe isn't refusing to pay taxes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6186.0,"score_ratio":1.5333333333}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqsq5o5","c_root_id_B":"hqsrcij","created_at_utc_A":1641037865,"created_at_utc_B":1641038906,"score_A":16,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Wow, it's almost like he's a human being or something with all those human like behaviours he displays.","human_ref_B":"He refuses to pay taxes?  Can you show any examples, news articles showing his tax evasion?  If he was refusing to pay taxes he'd be in jail for tax evasion.  Not paying taxes you don't owe isn't refusing to pay taxes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1041.0,"score_ratio":1.4375}
+{"post_id":"rtgbcj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He refuses to pay taxes, he insults people he dislikes on twitter, he exploits the vulnerability of young people by adopting \"meme culture\", he didn't actually contribute to any of his \"inventions\" himself, he constantly makes false promises, is anti-union and tries to paint himself as a self-made man when his parents owned an emerald mine in south africa. This man is absolutely not worthy of whorship in any way. It makes me sick to see his boot getting licked all over reddit. You should know better.","c_root_id_A":"hqskgep","c_root_id_B":"hqsq5o5","created_at_utc_A":1641032720,"created_at_utc_B":1641037865,"score_A":15,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":">He refuses to pay taxes  Net worth and liquid assets are 2 different things. He did liquidate about $30B\\~ worth of Tesla stock and there isn't anyway to offload that.   >he insults people he dislikes on twitter  Like who? I don't think I have ever seen him just attack people out the blue. Usually they come at him 1st and at which point whatever he decides to reply with is fair game at that point.","human_ref_B":"Wow, it's almost like he's a human being or something with all those human like behaviours he displays.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5145.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jxun2","c_root_id_B":"f6kfwwq","created_at_utc_A":1572901862,"created_at_utc_B":1572911666,"score_A":461,"score_B":601,"human_ref_A":"I think that you are extrapolating your own experience upon the whole field of sex work. There's plenty of willing participants. But that doesn't negate the fact that trafficking does happen. There's more to the situation than you are seeing.   Again I have nothing wrong with you or your actions. But to generalize an entire industry is not rational.","human_ref_B":"There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You're right we've figured it out, let's all go home.     I think your cases is pretty interesting to me. Feet are basically 100% non-sexual in my mind. So if you paid me to suck on my feet, it wouldn't really be me doing anything sexual. Even though it has sexual implications to you.      I think people are hung up on the idea of people \"selling their bodies for something sexual.\" It couldn't be that they are hung up on the idea of people just selling their bodies, else they'd be avoiding coffee, chocolate, cars, technology, fast fashion, basically anything which uses slave labor in the supply chain, especially extractive industries(mining). Since we're here on reddit, we can assume that most users are on a computer or phone, and are generally ok with creating a demand for the precious metals and other elements necessary to construct those devices.      Ok cool, so that's from a sale of your body side of things. I don't think that there is really much of a case there.      However, there is a pretty compelling argument to be made that the pornography industry as a whole, and the sale of sex are directly linked to human trafficking. If you are consuming free porn which is not actually made by amateurs, odds are you've watched porn which is at the very least highly exploitative, I'd even venture a guess that you've watched someone who was being trafficked and didn't even realize it. I actually do believe that this is immoral as you are creating a demand for an unethical product. On the other hand, I don't think viewing pornagraphic images or videos is the problem, it's the creation of that demand that's the issue. You are paying people and creating a specific demand which seems like not a problem. I also don't think that there is anything particularly wrong with paying a cam-girl.      In places where prostitution is fully legal, pimps and traffickers use the legality to hide their abusive treatment of their victims. In places where prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are the ones who suffer. In the US, it's very hard to get help from trafficking, because admitting to prostitution means that you're very likely to be charged with a crime also which is likely to impact your ability to find work. I advocate for the legalized sale of sex, but not the legalized purchase. I'm open to other thoughts, but in my mind this is the best way to be able to target traffickers and pimps without harming prostitutes.      I don't think your actions seem to be contributing directly to the sorts of harms that those stories are alluded to. I struggle with this thought a lot. On the one hand, sex trafficking is a huge issue. On the other hand, I think it's unreasonable to assume that every sex worker is being force to do it. Women have spent years trying to fight sexist narratives, and claim empowerment only to hear that sex work is not a choice that they can make, and is something which they must inherently be a victim of if they choose to participate. That seems infantilizing at best.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9804.0,"score_ratio":1.3036876356}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6k1xxw","c_root_id_B":"f6kfwwq","created_at_utc_A":1572903647,"created_at_utc_B":1572911666,"score_A":118,"score_B":601,"human_ref_A":"There is **something** morally wrong because  there may be many cases where the person does not want to perform the sex act but feels compelled to for money. In America without enough money you can literally die as we don't have too much in the way of safety nets, so if the choice is homelessness or having sex for money, most will chose the latter, even if they have zero desire to preform the act.   Money is power, the reason we don't like teachers or bosses sleeping with consenting subordinates is because the power they have makes full consent impossible, the same moral argument can be extended to paying for sex.","human_ref_B":"There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You're right we've figured it out, let's all go home.     I think your cases is pretty interesting to me. Feet are basically 100% non-sexual in my mind. So if you paid me to suck on my feet, it wouldn't really be me doing anything sexual. Even though it has sexual implications to you.      I think people are hung up on the idea of people \"selling their bodies for something sexual.\" It couldn't be that they are hung up on the idea of people just selling their bodies, else they'd be avoiding coffee, chocolate, cars, technology, fast fashion, basically anything which uses slave labor in the supply chain, especially extractive industries(mining). Since we're here on reddit, we can assume that most users are on a computer or phone, and are generally ok with creating a demand for the precious metals and other elements necessary to construct those devices.      Ok cool, so that's from a sale of your body side of things. I don't think that there is really much of a case there.      However, there is a pretty compelling argument to be made that the pornography industry as a whole, and the sale of sex are directly linked to human trafficking. If you are consuming free porn which is not actually made by amateurs, odds are you've watched porn which is at the very least highly exploitative, I'd even venture a guess that you've watched someone who was being trafficked and didn't even realize it. I actually do believe that this is immoral as you are creating a demand for an unethical product. On the other hand, I don't think viewing pornagraphic images or videos is the problem, it's the creation of that demand that's the issue. You are paying people and creating a specific demand which seems like not a problem. I also don't think that there is anything particularly wrong with paying a cam-girl.      In places where prostitution is fully legal, pimps and traffickers use the legality to hide their abusive treatment of their victims. In places where prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are the ones who suffer. In the US, it's very hard to get help from trafficking, because admitting to prostitution means that you're very likely to be charged with a crime also which is likely to impact your ability to find work. I advocate for the legalized sale of sex, but not the legalized purchase. I'm open to other thoughts, but in my mind this is the best way to be able to target traffickers and pimps without harming prostitutes.      I don't think your actions seem to be contributing directly to the sorts of harms that those stories are alluded to. I struggle with this thought a lot. On the one hand, sex trafficking is a huge issue. On the other hand, I think it's unreasonable to assume that every sex worker is being force to do it. Women have spent years trying to fight sexist narratives, and claim empowerment only to hear that sex work is not a choice that they can make, and is something which they must inherently be a victim of if they choose to participate. That seems infantilizing at best.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8019.0,"score_ratio":5.093220339}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6kfwwq","c_root_id_B":"f6kemef","created_at_utc_A":1572911666,"created_at_utc_B":1572911070,"score_A":601,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":"There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You're right we've figured it out, let's all go home.     I think your cases is pretty interesting to me. Feet are basically 100% non-sexual in my mind. So if you paid me to suck on my feet, it wouldn't really be me doing anything sexual. Even though it has sexual implications to you.      I think people are hung up on the idea of people \"selling their bodies for something sexual.\" It couldn't be that they are hung up on the idea of people just selling their bodies, else they'd be avoiding coffee, chocolate, cars, technology, fast fashion, basically anything which uses slave labor in the supply chain, especially extractive industries(mining). Since we're here on reddit, we can assume that most users are on a computer or phone, and are generally ok with creating a demand for the precious metals and other elements necessary to construct those devices.      Ok cool, so that's from a sale of your body side of things. I don't think that there is really much of a case there.      However, there is a pretty compelling argument to be made that the pornography industry as a whole, and the sale of sex are directly linked to human trafficking. If you are consuming free porn which is not actually made by amateurs, odds are you've watched porn which is at the very least highly exploitative, I'd even venture a guess that you've watched someone who was being trafficked and didn't even realize it. I actually do believe that this is immoral as you are creating a demand for an unethical product. On the other hand, I don't think viewing pornagraphic images or videos is the problem, it's the creation of that demand that's the issue. You are paying people and creating a specific demand which seems like not a problem. I also don't think that there is anything particularly wrong with paying a cam-girl.      In places where prostitution is fully legal, pimps and traffickers use the legality to hide their abusive treatment of their victims. In places where prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are the ones who suffer. In the US, it's very hard to get help from trafficking, because admitting to prostitution means that you're very likely to be charged with a crime also which is likely to impact your ability to find work. I advocate for the legalized sale of sex, but not the legalized purchase. I'm open to other thoughts, but in my mind this is the best way to be able to target traffickers and pimps without harming prostitutes.      I don't think your actions seem to be contributing directly to the sorts of harms that those stories are alluded to. I struggle with this thought a lot. On the one hand, sex trafficking is a huge issue. On the other hand, I think it's unreasonable to assume that every sex worker is being force to do it. Women have spent years trying to fight sexist narratives, and claim empowerment only to hear that sex work is not a choice that they can make, and is something which they must inherently be a victim of if they choose to participate. That seems infantilizing at best.","human_ref_B":"As your stated view is about sex-work in general rather than the very specific male-foot fetish digital sex-work, I will address the more general case if that's ok.   There are two possible interpretations behind your stated view:     1. There is nothing wrong with paying for sexual activity **in a situation where we can be sure the sex worker is not being exploited either directly (e.g. trafficking, pimping etc) or indirectly (e.g. dire economic and social deprivation) and is doing so of their own free will without any systematic mental or physical ailment driving them to this. In other words, their choosing to do sex-work because they like it, like how a carpenter likes making things.**  2. There is nothing wrong with paying for sexual activity **as is practically available in modern society.**   If your intended meaning is (1) then I agree. However, this is highly stylised and difficult to confirm without full legalisation (not mere de-criminalisation) of the industry, something that is a reality in none but a few locations globally. The reason for the legal requirement is that without the support of the state, there is very little protection for those in the industry.      If your intended meaning is (2) then, given the legal purgatory that the industry occupies, one can argue that there is actual harm that comes from supporting the sex-industry. And if you believe passive support of harmful industries to be morally wrong then we have a problem with the view as stated.      I'm going to assume that you do believe passive support of harmful industries to be morally wrong to move forward.      We can break down harm in the industry into three categories giving one example each:  * **Personal legal harm:** Sex workers do not benefit from the complete protection of the law and hence are vulnerable.     * Some customer didn't pay you \/ was violent with you? Goodluck reporting them * **Personal social harm:** Sex workers are people in need of flexible well-paying careers with a long-term future. The industry does not provide this.     * 6% of sex-workers report feeling forced into doing a sexual act in their job. I wonder how many waiters and PAs feel this way.  * **Public social harm:** Many sex-workers get paid well, but that money often gets misused as compared to other industries.    * Between 2 and 4 in 5 sex-workers self-report as drug addicts. This means that many of the single-parent and recent university graduate sex-workers that wanted this to be a temporary gig, never actually get out of it, staying in it for the quick cash to fuel the addiction.   Having laid out the case above, I do agree that I have used the facts to tell a particular story with a focus on harm.      If you agree that even some of one of the 3 areas outlined above is true then there is something morally wrong with supporting an industry that facilitates this. As there is something morally wrong with supporting the fast-fashion industry for example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":596.0,"score_ratio":9.2461538462}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jx6zl","c_root_id_B":"f6kfwwq","created_at_utc_A":1572901572,"created_at_utc_B":1572911666,"score_A":20,"score_B":601,"human_ref_A":"I generally agree with one difference.  If everyone is consenting, then I agree. If you are consenting but the sex worker has a pimp saying 'Bitch go make me some money' then that's not really consenting is it?  Not to mention those that are specifically trafficked. And how do you know where that line is?","human_ref_B":"There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You're right we've figured it out, let's all go home.     I think your cases is pretty interesting to me. Feet are basically 100% non-sexual in my mind. So if you paid me to suck on my feet, it wouldn't really be me doing anything sexual. Even though it has sexual implications to you.      I think people are hung up on the idea of people \"selling their bodies for something sexual.\" It couldn't be that they are hung up on the idea of people just selling their bodies, else they'd be avoiding coffee, chocolate, cars, technology, fast fashion, basically anything which uses slave labor in the supply chain, especially extractive industries(mining). Since we're here on reddit, we can assume that most users are on a computer or phone, and are generally ok with creating a demand for the precious metals and other elements necessary to construct those devices.      Ok cool, so that's from a sale of your body side of things. I don't think that there is really much of a case there.      However, there is a pretty compelling argument to be made that the pornography industry as a whole, and the sale of sex are directly linked to human trafficking. If you are consuming free porn which is not actually made by amateurs, odds are you've watched porn which is at the very least highly exploitative, I'd even venture a guess that you've watched someone who was being trafficked and didn't even realize it. I actually do believe that this is immoral as you are creating a demand for an unethical product. On the other hand, I don't think viewing pornagraphic images or videos is the problem, it's the creation of that demand that's the issue. You are paying people and creating a specific demand which seems like not a problem. I also don't think that there is anything particularly wrong with paying a cam-girl.      In places where prostitution is fully legal, pimps and traffickers use the legality to hide their abusive treatment of their victims. In places where prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are the ones who suffer. In the US, it's very hard to get help from trafficking, because admitting to prostitution means that you're very likely to be charged with a crime also which is likely to impact your ability to find work. I advocate for the legalized sale of sex, but not the legalized purchase. I'm open to other thoughts, but in my mind this is the best way to be able to target traffickers and pimps without harming prostitutes.      I don't think your actions seem to be contributing directly to the sorts of harms that those stories are alluded to. I struggle with this thought a lot. On the one hand, sex trafficking is a huge issue. On the other hand, I think it's unreasonable to assume that every sex worker is being force to do it. Women have spent years trying to fight sexist narratives, and claim empowerment only to hear that sex work is not a choice that they can make, and is something which they must inherently be a victim of if they choose to participate. That seems infantilizing at best.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10094.0,"score_ratio":30.05}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jwvzd","c_root_id_B":"f6kfwwq","created_at_utc_A":1572901440,"created_at_utc_B":1572911666,"score_A":19,"score_B":601,"human_ref_A":"> They are adults, not trafficked and not forced.  If you recognize that there is no way to be 100% certain of this, you'll recognize the moral hazard.","human_ref_B":"There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You're right we've figured it out, let's all go home.     I think your cases is pretty interesting to me. Feet are basically 100% non-sexual in my mind. So if you paid me to suck on my feet, it wouldn't really be me doing anything sexual. Even though it has sexual implications to you.      I think people are hung up on the idea of people \"selling their bodies for something sexual.\" It couldn't be that they are hung up on the idea of people just selling their bodies, else they'd be avoiding coffee, chocolate, cars, technology, fast fashion, basically anything which uses slave labor in the supply chain, especially extractive industries(mining). Since we're here on reddit, we can assume that most users are on a computer or phone, and are generally ok with creating a demand for the precious metals and other elements necessary to construct those devices.      Ok cool, so that's from a sale of your body side of things. I don't think that there is really much of a case there.      However, there is a pretty compelling argument to be made that the pornography industry as a whole, and the sale of sex are directly linked to human trafficking. If you are consuming free porn which is not actually made by amateurs, odds are you've watched porn which is at the very least highly exploitative, I'd even venture a guess that you've watched someone who was being trafficked and didn't even realize it. I actually do believe that this is immoral as you are creating a demand for an unethical product. On the other hand, I don't think viewing pornagraphic images or videos is the problem, it's the creation of that demand that's the issue. You are paying people and creating a specific demand which seems like not a problem. I also don't think that there is anything particularly wrong with paying a cam-girl.      In places where prostitution is fully legal, pimps and traffickers use the legality to hide their abusive treatment of their victims. In places where prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are the ones who suffer. In the US, it's very hard to get help from trafficking, because admitting to prostitution means that you're very likely to be charged with a crime also which is likely to impact your ability to find work. I advocate for the legalized sale of sex, but not the legalized purchase. I'm open to other thoughts, but in my mind this is the best way to be able to target traffickers and pimps without harming prostitutes.      I don't think your actions seem to be contributing directly to the sorts of harms that those stories are alluded to. I struggle with this thought a lot. On the one hand, sex trafficking is a huge issue. On the other hand, I think it's unreasonable to assume that every sex worker is being force to do it. Women have spent years trying to fight sexist narratives, and claim empowerment only to hear that sex work is not a choice that they can make, and is something which they must inherently be a victim of if they choose to participate. That seems infantilizing at best.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10226.0,"score_ratio":31.6315789474}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jznae","c_root_id_B":"f6kfwwq","created_at_utc_A":1572902643,"created_at_utc_B":1572911666,"score_A":16,"score_B":601,"human_ref_A":"The trouble with paying for sex is that it\u2019s extremely difficult to discriminate between people who are working that job voluntarily and those who are coerced into this by either powerlessness or terrible circumstance. Nothing prevents someone from being an enthusiastic sex worker but the history of worker abuse in this professional field (spurred in part by its history of illegitimacy) makes soliciting any sex worker a liability in supporting shitty employment practices (or sometimes \u2018slavery\u2019). This doesn\u2019t speak to your particular peccadillo or its solicitation specifically, but as a whole, it\u2019s easy to see how grey-market sex work can be a fraught area for true consensual employment (accountants are far less likely to be coerced and far more likely to testify if something is wrong).","human_ref_B":"There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You're right we've figured it out, let's all go home.     I think your cases is pretty interesting to me. Feet are basically 100% non-sexual in my mind. So if you paid me to suck on my feet, it wouldn't really be me doing anything sexual. Even though it has sexual implications to you.      I think people are hung up on the idea of people \"selling their bodies for something sexual.\" It couldn't be that they are hung up on the idea of people just selling their bodies, else they'd be avoiding coffee, chocolate, cars, technology, fast fashion, basically anything which uses slave labor in the supply chain, especially extractive industries(mining). Since we're here on reddit, we can assume that most users are on a computer or phone, and are generally ok with creating a demand for the precious metals and other elements necessary to construct those devices.      Ok cool, so that's from a sale of your body side of things. I don't think that there is really much of a case there.      However, there is a pretty compelling argument to be made that the pornography industry as a whole, and the sale of sex are directly linked to human trafficking. If you are consuming free porn which is not actually made by amateurs, odds are you've watched porn which is at the very least highly exploitative, I'd even venture a guess that you've watched someone who was being trafficked and didn't even realize it. I actually do believe that this is immoral as you are creating a demand for an unethical product. On the other hand, I don't think viewing pornagraphic images or videos is the problem, it's the creation of that demand that's the issue. You are paying people and creating a specific demand which seems like not a problem. I also don't think that there is anything particularly wrong with paying a cam-girl.      In places where prostitution is fully legal, pimps and traffickers use the legality to hide their abusive treatment of their victims. In places where prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are the ones who suffer. In the US, it's very hard to get help from trafficking, because admitting to prostitution means that you're very likely to be charged with a crime also which is likely to impact your ability to find work. I advocate for the legalized sale of sex, but not the legalized purchase. I'm open to other thoughts, but in my mind this is the best way to be able to target traffickers and pimps without harming prostitutes.      I don't think your actions seem to be contributing directly to the sorts of harms that those stories are alluded to. I struggle with this thought a lot. On the one hand, sex trafficking is a huge issue. On the other hand, I think it's unreasonable to assume that every sex worker is being force to do it. Women have spent years trying to fight sexist narratives, and claim empowerment only to hear that sex work is not a choice that they can make, and is something which they must inherently be a victim of if they choose to participate. That seems infantilizing at best.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9023.0,"score_ratio":37.5625}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jxun2","c_root_id_B":"f6jx6zl","created_at_utc_A":1572901862,"created_at_utc_B":1572901572,"score_A":461,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"I think that you are extrapolating your own experience upon the whole field of sex work. There's plenty of willing participants. But that doesn't negate the fact that trafficking does happen. There's more to the situation than you are seeing.   Again I have nothing wrong with you or your actions. But to generalize an entire industry is not rational.","human_ref_B":"I generally agree with one difference.  If everyone is consenting, then I agree. If you are consenting but the sex worker has a pimp saying 'Bitch go make me some money' then that's not really consenting is it?  Not to mention those that are specifically trafficked. And how do you know where that line is?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":290.0,"score_ratio":23.05}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jxun2","c_root_id_B":"f6jwvzd","created_at_utc_A":1572901862,"created_at_utc_B":1572901440,"score_A":461,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"I think that you are extrapolating your own experience upon the whole field of sex work. There's plenty of willing participants. But that doesn't negate the fact that trafficking does happen. There's more to the situation than you are seeing.   Again I have nothing wrong with you or your actions. But to generalize an entire industry is not rational.","human_ref_B":"> They are adults, not trafficked and not forced.  If you recognize that there is no way to be 100% certain of this, you'll recognize the moral hazard.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":422.0,"score_ratio":24.2631578947}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6k1xxw","c_root_id_B":"f6kjawd","created_at_utc_A":1572903647,"created_at_utc_B":1572913265,"score_A":118,"score_B":149,"human_ref_A":"There is **something** morally wrong because  there may be many cases where the person does not want to perform the sex act but feels compelled to for money. In America without enough money you can literally die as we don't have too much in the way of safety nets, so if the choice is homelessness or having sex for money, most will chose the latter, even if they have zero desire to preform the act.   Money is power, the reason we don't like teachers or bosses sleeping with consenting subordinates is because the power they have makes full consent impossible, the same moral argument can be extended to paying for sex.","human_ref_B":"I was a cam model during college to help pay for it because I didn't have enough money to and would have had to drop out if I didn't keep doing it. I think morality of what you're doing depends on if the person your paying is comfortable with it. I was comfortable with making videos and selling clothing but would not have been comfortable doing anything in person. I've told people that and have had a few individuals that were pretty pushy, offering a lot of money to get me to do things that I was uncomfortable with. I was able to resist because I knew I just needed enough money to finish college and was projecting I would be able to get that from just doing the things I was comfortable with(live streaming, making videos, and selling clothing). For people that don't have as promising plans for their future, it would be more difficult to resist, if they are uncomfortable with it and you offer them a lot of money to do it regardless of their comfort level, you're basically forcing them to do it, taking advantage of their despair.     It could be tough to tell if someone who is doing sex work is being trafficked or if they are actually comfortable with what they are doing. It can be soul crushing for the person if they are uncomfortable with what you are paying them to do. Making them feel like they are just an object for being used. Even though I was perfectly comfortable with cam modelling, I've seen a few cam models that were really uncomfortable with what they were doing and were only doing it because they felt desperate. It's really sad to see that happen, especially when they can't even make much money doing it, makes them feel worthless.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9618.0,"score_ratio":1.2627118644}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6kemef","c_root_id_B":"f6kjawd","created_at_utc_A":1572911070,"created_at_utc_B":1572913265,"score_A":65,"score_B":149,"human_ref_A":"As your stated view is about sex-work in general rather than the very specific male-foot fetish digital sex-work, I will address the more general case if that's ok.   There are two possible interpretations behind your stated view:     1. There is nothing wrong with paying for sexual activity **in a situation where we can be sure the sex worker is not being exploited either directly (e.g. trafficking, pimping etc) or indirectly (e.g. dire economic and social deprivation) and is doing so of their own free will without any systematic mental or physical ailment driving them to this. In other words, their choosing to do sex-work because they like it, like how a carpenter likes making things.**  2. There is nothing wrong with paying for sexual activity **as is practically available in modern society.**   If your intended meaning is (1) then I agree. However, this is highly stylised and difficult to confirm without full legalisation (not mere de-criminalisation) of the industry, something that is a reality in none but a few locations globally. The reason for the legal requirement is that without the support of the state, there is very little protection for those in the industry.      If your intended meaning is (2) then, given the legal purgatory that the industry occupies, one can argue that there is actual harm that comes from supporting the sex-industry. And if you believe passive support of harmful industries to be morally wrong then we have a problem with the view as stated.      I'm going to assume that you do believe passive support of harmful industries to be morally wrong to move forward.      We can break down harm in the industry into three categories giving one example each:  * **Personal legal harm:** Sex workers do not benefit from the complete protection of the law and hence are vulnerable.     * Some customer didn't pay you \/ was violent with you? Goodluck reporting them * **Personal social harm:** Sex workers are people in need of flexible well-paying careers with a long-term future. The industry does not provide this.     * 6% of sex-workers report feeling forced into doing a sexual act in their job. I wonder how many waiters and PAs feel this way.  * **Public social harm:** Many sex-workers get paid well, but that money often gets misused as compared to other industries.    * Between 2 and 4 in 5 sex-workers self-report as drug addicts. This means that many of the single-parent and recent university graduate sex-workers that wanted this to be a temporary gig, never actually get out of it, staying in it for the quick cash to fuel the addiction.   Having laid out the case above, I do agree that I have used the facts to tell a particular story with a focus on harm.      If you agree that even some of one of the 3 areas outlined above is true then there is something morally wrong with supporting an industry that facilitates this. As there is something morally wrong with supporting the fast-fashion industry for example.","human_ref_B":"I was a cam model during college to help pay for it because I didn't have enough money to and would have had to drop out if I didn't keep doing it. I think morality of what you're doing depends on if the person your paying is comfortable with it. I was comfortable with making videos and selling clothing but would not have been comfortable doing anything in person. I've told people that and have had a few individuals that were pretty pushy, offering a lot of money to get me to do things that I was uncomfortable with. I was able to resist because I knew I just needed enough money to finish college and was projecting I would be able to get that from just doing the things I was comfortable with(live streaming, making videos, and selling clothing). For people that don't have as promising plans for their future, it would be more difficult to resist, if they are uncomfortable with it and you offer them a lot of money to do it regardless of their comfort level, you're basically forcing them to do it, taking advantage of their despair.     It could be tough to tell if someone who is doing sex work is being trafficked or if they are actually comfortable with what they are doing. It can be soul crushing for the person if they are uncomfortable with what you are paying them to do. Making them feel like they are just an object for being used. Even though I was perfectly comfortable with cam modelling, I've seen a few cam models that were really uncomfortable with what they were doing and were only doing it because they felt desperate. It's really sad to see that happen, especially when they can't even make much money doing it, makes them feel worthless.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2195.0,"score_ratio":2.2923076923}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6kjawd","c_root_id_B":"f6jx6zl","created_at_utc_A":1572913265,"created_at_utc_B":1572901572,"score_A":149,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"I was a cam model during college to help pay for it because I didn't have enough money to and would have had to drop out if I didn't keep doing it. I think morality of what you're doing depends on if the person your paying is comfortable with it. I was comfortable with making videos and selling clothing but would not have been comfortable doing anything in person. I've told people that and have had a few individuals that were pretty pushy, offering a lot of money to get me to do things that I was uncomfortable with. I was able to resist because I knew I just needed enough money to finish college and was projecting I would be able to get that from just doing the things I was comfortable with(live streaming, making videos, and selling clothing). For people that don't have as promising plans for their future, it would be more difficult to resist, if they are uncomfortable with it and you offer them a lot of money to do it regardless of their comfort level, you're basically forcing them to do it, taking advantage of their despair.     It could be tough to tell if someone who is doing sex work is being trafficked or if they are actually comfortable with what they are doing. It can be soul crushing for the person if they are uncomfortable with what you are paying them to do. Making them feel like they are just an object for being used. Even though I was perfectly comfortable with cam modelling, I've seen a few cam models that were really uncomfortable with what they were doing and were only doing it because they felt desperate. It's really sad to see that happen, especially when they can't even make much money doing it, makes them feel worthless.","human_ref_B":"I generally agree with one difference.  If everyone is consenting, then I agree. If you are consenting but the sex worker has a pimp saying 'Bitch go make me some money' then that's not really consenting is it?  Not to mention those that are specifically trafficked. And how do you know where that line is?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11693.0,"score_ratio":7.45}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jwvzd","c_root_id_B":"f6kjawd","created_at_utc_A":1572901440,"created_at_utc_B":1572913265,"score_A":19,"score_B":149,"human_ref_A":"> They are adults, not trafficked and not forced.  If you recognize that there is no way to be 100% certain of this, you'll recognize the moral hazard.","human_ref_B":"I was a cam model during college to help pay for it because I didn't have enough money to and would have had to drop out if I didn't keep doing it. I think morality of what you're doing depends on if the person your paying is comfortable with it. I was comfortable with making videos and selling clothing but would not have been comfortable doing anything in person. I've told people that and have had a few individuals that were pretty pushy, offering a lot of money to get me to do things that I was uncomfortable with. I was able to resist because I knew I just needed enough money to finish college and was projecting I would be able to get that from just doing the things I was comfortable with(live streaming, making videos, and selling clothing). For people that don't have as promising plans for their future, it would be more difficult to resist, if they are uncomfortable with it and you offer them a lot of money to do it regardless of their comfort level, you're basically forcing them to do it, taking advantage of their despair.     It could be tough to tell if someone who is doing sex work is being trafficked or if they are actually comfortable with what they are doing. It can be soul crushing for the person if they are uncomfortable with what you are paying them to do. Making them feel like they are just an object for being used. Even though I was perfectly comfortable with cam modelling, I've seen a few cam models that were really uncomfortable with what they were doing and were only doing it because they felt desperate. It's really sad to see that happen, especially when they can't even make much money doing it, makes them feel worthless.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11825.0,"score_ratio":7.8421052632}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jznae","c_root_id_B":"f6kjawd","created_at_utc_A":1572902643,"created_at_utc_B":1572913265,"score_A":16,"score_B":149,"human_ref_A":"The trouble with paying for sex is that it\u2019s extremely difficult to discriminate between people who are working that job voluntarily and those who are coerced into this by either powerlessness or terrible circumstance. Nothing prevents someone from being an enthusiastic sex worker but the history of worker abuse in this professional field (spurred in part by its history of illegitimacy) makes soliciting any sex worker a liability in supporting shitty employment practices (or sometimes \u2018slavery\u2019). This doesn\u2019t speak to your particular peccadillo or its solicitation specifically, but as a whole, it\u2019s easy to see how grey-market sex work can be a fraught area for true consensual employment (accountants are far less likely to be coerced and far more likely to testify if something is wrong).","human_ref_B":"I was a cam model during college to help pay for it because I didn't have enough money to and would have had to drop out if I didn't keep doing it. I think morality of what you're doing depends on if the person your paying is comfortable with it. I was comfortable with making videos and selling clothing but would not have been comfortable doing anything in person. I've told people that and have had a few individuals that were pretty pushy, offering a lot of money to get me to do things that I was uncomfortable with. I was able to resist because I knew I just needed enough money to finish college and was projecting I would be able to get that from just doing the things I was comfortable with(live streaming, making videos, and selling clothing). For people that don't have as promising plans for their future, it would be more difficult to resist, if they are uncomfortable with it and you offer them a lot of money to do it regardless of their comfort level, you're basically forcing them to do it, taking advantage of their despair.     It could be tough to tell if someone who is doing sex work is being trafficked or if they are actually comfortable with what they are doing. It can be soul crushing for the person if they are uncomfortable with what you are paying them to do. Making them feel like they are just an object for being used. Even though I was perfectly comfortable with cam modelling, I've seen a few cam models that were really uncomfortable with what they were doing and were only doing it because they felt desperate. It's really sad to see that happen, especially when they can't even make much money doing it, makes them feel worthless.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10622.0,"score_ratio":9.3125}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6k1xxw","c_root_id_B":"f6jx6zl","created_at_utc_A":1572903647,"created_at_utc_B":1572901572,"score_A":118,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"There is **something** morally wrong because  there may be many cases where the person does not want to perform the sex act but feels compelled to for money. In America without enough money you can literally die as we don't have too much in the way of safety nets, so if the choice is homelessness or having sex for money, most will chose the latter, even if they have zero desire to preform the act.   Money is power, the reason we don't like teachers or bosses sleeping with consenting subordinates is because the power they have makes full consent impossible, the same moral argument can be extended to paying for sex.","human_ref_B":"I generally agree with one difference.  If everyone is consenting, then I agree. If you are consenting but the sex worker has a pimp saying 'Bitch go make me some money' then that's not really consenting is it?  Not to mention those that are specifically trafficked. And how do you know where that line is?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2075.0,"score_ratio":5.9}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6k1xxw","c_root_id_B":"f6jwvzd","created_at_utc_A":1572903647,"created_at_utc_B":1572901440,"score_A":118,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"There is **something** morally wrong because  there may be many cases where the person does not want to perform the sex act but feels compelled to for money. In America without enough money you can literally die as we don't have too much in the way of safety nets, so if the choice is homelessness or having sex for money, most will chose the latter, even if they have zero desire to preform the act.   Money is power, the reason we don't like teachers or bosses sleeping with consenting subordinates is because the power they have makes full consent impossible, the same moral argument can be extended to paying for sex.","human_ref_B":"> They are adults, not trafficked and not forced.  If you recognize that there is no way to be 100% certain of this, you'll recognize the moral hazard.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2207.0,"score_ratio":6.2105263158}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6k1xxw","c_root_id_B":"f6jznae","created_at_utc_A":1572903647,"created_at_utc_B":1572902643,"score_A":118,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"There is **something** morally wrong because  there may be many cases where the person does not want to perform the sex act but feels compelled to for money. In America without enough money you can literally die as we don't have too much in the way of safety nets, so if the choice is homelessness or having sex for money, most will chose the latter, even if they have zero desire to preform the act.   Money is power, the reason we don't like teachers or bosses sleeping with consenting subordinates is because the power they have makes full consent impossible, the same moral argument can be extended to paying for sex.","human_ref_B":"The trouble with paying for sex is that it\u2019s extremely difficult to discriminate between people who are working that job voluntarily and those who are coerced into this by either powerlessness or terrible circumstance. Nothing prevents someone from being an enthusiastic sex worker but the history of worker abuse in this professional field (spurred in part by its history of illegitimacy) makes soliciting any sex worker a liability in supporting shitty employment practices (or sometimes \u2018slavery\u2019). This doesn\u2019t speak to your particular peccadillo or its solicitation specifically, but as a whole, it\u2019s easy to see how grey-market sex work can be a fraught area for true consensual employment (accountants are far less likely to be coerced and far more likely to testify if something is wrong).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1004.0,"score_ratio":7.375}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jx6zl","c_root_id_B":"f6kemef","created_at_utc_A":1572901572,"created_at_utc_B":1572911070,"score_A":20,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":"I generally agree with one difference.  If everyone is consenting, then I agree. If you are consenting but the sex worker has a pimp saying 'Bitch go make me some money' then that's not really consenting is it?  Not to mention those that are specifically trafficked. And how do you know where that line is?","human_ref_B":"As your stated view is about sex-work in general rather than the very specific male-foot fetish digital sex-work, I will address the more general case if that's ok.   There are two possible interpretations behind your stated view:     1. There is nothing wrong with paying for sexual activity **in a situation where we can be sure the sex worker is not being exploited either directly (e.g. trafficking, pimping etc) or indirectly (e.g. dire economic and social deprivation) and is doing so of their own free will without any systematic mental or physical ailment driving them to this. In other words, their choosing to do sex-work because they like it, like how a carpenter likes making things.**  2. There is nothing wrong with paying for sexual activity **as is practically available in modern society.**   If your intended meaning is (1) then I agree. However, this is highly stylised and difficult to confirm without full legalisation (not mere de-criminalisation) of the industry, something that is a reality in none but a few locations globally. The reason for the legal requirement is that without the support of the state, there is very little protection for those in the industry.      If your intended meaning is (2) then, given the legal purgatory that the industry occupies, one can argue that there is actual harm that comes from supporting the sex-industry. And if you believe passive support of harmful industries to be morally wrong then we have a problem with the view as stated.      I'm going to assume that you do believe passive support of harmful industries to be morally wrong to move forward.      We can break down harm in the industry into three categories giving one example each:  * **Personal legal harm:** Sex workers do not benefit from the complete protection of the law and hence are vulnerable.     * Some customer didn't pay you \/ was violent with you? Goodluck reporting them * **Personal social harm:** Sex workers are people in need of flexible well-paying careers with a long-term future. The industry does not provide this.     * 6% of sex-workers report feeling forced into doing a sexual act in their job. I wonder how many waiters and PAs feel this way.  * **Public social harm:** Many sex-workers get paid well, but that money often gets misused as compared to other industries.    * Between 2 and 4 in 5 sex-workers self-report as drug addicts. This means that many of the single-parent and recent university graduate sex-workers that wanted this to be a temporary gig, never actually get out of it, staying in it for the quick cash to fuel the addiction.   Having laid out the case above, I do agree that I have used the facts to tell a particular story with a focus on harm.      If you agree that even some of one of the 3 areas outlined above is true then there is something morally wrong with supporting an industry that facilitates this. As there is something morally wrong with supporting the fast-fashion industry for example.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9498.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jwvzd","c_root_id_B":"f6kemef","created_at_utc_A":1572901440,"created_at_utc_B":1572911070,"score_A":19,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":"> They are adults, not trafficked and not forced.  If you recognize that there is no way to be 100% certain of this, you'll recognize the moral hazard.","human_ref_B":"As your stated view is about sex-work in general rather than the very specific male-foot fetish digital sex-work, I will address the more general case if that's ok.   There are two possible interpretations behind your stated view:     1. There is nothing wrong with paying for sexual activity **in a situation where we can be sure the sex worker is not being exploited either directly (e.g. trafficking, pimping etc) or indirectly (e.g. dire economic and social deprivation) and is doing so of their own free will without any systematic mental or physical ailment driving them to this. In other words, their choosing to do sex-work because they like it, like how a carpenter likes making things.**  2. There is nothing wrong with paying for sexual activity **as is practically available in modern society.**   If your intended meaning is (1) then I agree. However, this is highly stylised and difficult to confirm without full legalisation (not mere de-criminalisation) of the industry, something that is a reality in none but a few locations globally. The reason for the legal requirement is that without the support of the state, there is very little protection for those in the industry.      If your intended meaning is (2) then, given the legal purgatory that the industry occupies, one can argue that there is actual harm that comes from supporting the sex-industry. And if you believe passive support of harmful industries to be morally wrong then we have a problem with the view as stated.      I'm going to assume that you do believe passive support of harmful industries to be morally wrong to move forward.      We can break down harm in the industry into three categories giving one example each:  * **Personal legal harm:** Sex workers do not benefit from the complete protection of the law and hence are vulnerable.     * Some customer didn't pay you \/ was violent with you? Goodluck reporting them * **Personal social harm:** Sex workers are people in need of flexible well-paying careers with a long-term future. The industry does not provide this.     * 6% of sex-workers report feeling forced into doing a sexual act in their job. I wonder how many waiters and PAs feel this way.  * **Public social harm:** Many sex-workers get paid well, but that money often gets misused as compared to other industries.    * Between 2 and 4 in 5 sex-workers self-report as drug addicts. This means that many of the single-parent and recent university graduate sex-workers that wanted this to be a temporary gig, never actually get out of it, staying in it for the quick cash to fuel the addiction.   Having laid out the case above, I do agree that I have used the facts to tell a particular story with a focus on harm.      If you agree that even some of one of the 3 areas outlined above is true then there is something morally wrong with supporting an industry that facilitates this. As there is something morally wrong with supporting the fast-fashion industry for example.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9630.0,"score_ratio":3.4210526316}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jznae","c_root_id_B":"f6kemef","created_at_utc_A":1572902643,"created_at_utc_B":1572911070,"score_A":16,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":"The trouble with paying for sex is that it\u2019s extremely difficult to discriminate between people who are working that job voluntarily and those who are coerced into this by either powerlessness or terrible circumstance. Nothing prevents someone from being an enthusiastic sex worker but the history of worker abuse in this professional field (spurred in part by its history of illegitimacy) makes soliciting any sex worker a liability in supporting shitty employment practices (or sometimes \u2018slavery\u2019). This doesn\u2019t speak to your particular peccadillo or its solicitation specifically, but as a whole, it\u2019s easy to see how grey-market sex work can be a fraught area for true consensual employment (accountants are far less likely to be coerced and far more likely to testify if something is wrong).","human_ref_B":"As your stated view is about sex-work in general rather than the very specific male-foot fetish digital sex-work, I will address the more general case if that's ok.   There are two possible interpretations behind your stated view:     1. There is nothing wrong with paying for sexual activity **in a situation where we can be sure the sex worker is not being exploited either directly (e.g. trafficking, pimping etc) or indirectly (e.g. dire economic and social deprivation) and is doing so of their own free will without any systematic mental or physical ailment driving them to this. In other words, their choosing to do sex-work because they like it, like how a carpenter likes making things.**  2. There is nothing wrong with paying for sexual activity **as is practically available in modern society.**   If your intended meaning is (1) then I agree. However, this is highly stylised and difficult to confirm without full legalisation (not mere de-criminalisation) of the industry, something that is a reality in none but a few locations globally. The reason for the legal requirement is that without the support of the state, there is very little protection for those in the industry.      If your intended meaning is (2) then, given the legal purgatory that the industry occupies, one can argue that there is actual harm that comes from supporting the sex-industry. And if you believe passive support of harmful industries to be morally wrong then we have a problem with the view as stated.      I'm going to assume that you do believe passive support of harmful industries to be morally wrong to move forward.      We can break down harm in the industry into three categories giving one example each:  * **Personal legal harm:** Sex workers do not benefit from the complete protection of the law and hence are vulnerable.     * Some customer didn't pay you \/ was violent with you? Goodluck reporting them * **Personal social harm:** Sex workers are people in need of flexible well-paying careers with a long-term future. The industry does not provide this.     * 6% of sex-workers report feeling forced into doing a sexual act in their job. I wonder how many waiters and PAs feel this way.  * **Public social harm:** Many sex-workers get paid well, but that money often gets misused as compared to other industries.    * Between 2 and 4 in 5 sex-workers self-report as drug addicts. This means that many of the single-parent and recent university graduate sex-workers that wanted this to be a temporary gig, never actually get out of it, staying in it for the quick cash to fuel the addiction.   Having laid out the case above, I do agree that I have used the facts to tell a particular story with a focus on harm.      If you agree that even some of one of the 3 areas outlined above is true then there is something morally wrong with supporting an industry that facilitates this. As there is something morally wrong with supporting the fast-fashion industry for example.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8427.0,"score_ratio":4.0625}
+{"post_id":"drnn2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with paying for sexual activity Today I read an article that called paying for sex evil and exploitative. I admit that I took it personally as I pay for sex.   For context, I have very precise sexual needs. I am male with a foot fetish for other guys feet. I am not interested in conventional sex with either men or women and do not want a relationship. Instead, I am paying guys hundreds to take pictures of, rub and suck on their feet. They are adults, not trafficked and not forced. I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with this.   You could argue that an unequal, capitalist society puts people in a situation where they decide to do something that they would rather not do to gain some benefit. They have something that I want and they are willing to trade that for cash. How is it any more evil or exploitative than any other capitalist transaction?   Some of the guys use the money to be able to better provide for their kids. If it is OK to allow a strong man to use his back to provide for his family then why is it less reasonable to ask him to put his feet up and get paid for something arguably less damaging to his body?  I think the same principle applies regardless of the sexual activity and gender of the individuals involved.","c_root_id_A":"f6jx6zl","c_root_id_B":"f6jwvzd","created_at_utc_A":1572901572,"created_at_utc_B":1572901440,"score_A":20,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"I generally agree with one difference.  If everyone is consenting, then I agree. If you are consenting but the sex worker has a pimp saying 'Bitch go make me some money' then that's not really consenting is it?  Not to mention those that are specifically trafficked. And how do you know where that line is?","human_ref_B":"> They are adults, not trafficked and not forced.  If you recognize that there is no way to be 100% certain of this, you'll recognize the moral hazard.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":132.0,"score_ratio":1.0526315789}
+{"post_id":"9g08ez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Being drunk isn\u2019t an excuse for cheating The age old \u201cI was blackout drunk, i didnt know what i was doing\u201d doesn\u2019t sit well with me.   Why? Because I have been drunk plenty of times, to the point of being completely incomprehensible to people, to the point that i black out some memories. but I always felt \u201cin control\u201d of my decisions, during my relationships id still go clubbing and get absurdly wasted but id still never hit on anyone or kiss anyone, because I could still make conscious decisions. So the thought that someone \u201cdoesnt know what they are doing\u201d makes zero sense to me, i can\u2019t imagine being in a drunken state where i *didnt* know what i was doing.    Change my view reddit!","c_root_id_A":"e60h5zo","c_root_id_B":"e60kggy","created_at_utc_A":1537004058,"created_at_utc_B":1537011114,"score_A":304,"score_B":1072,"human_ref_A":"Some people just do not get blacked out drunk. While others can black out with total memory loss from drinking small amounts too quickly, essentially leaving their decisions totally out of their conscious contol. Your subjective experience is just that, subjective and incomplete.","human_ref_B":"Alcohol absolutely does not affect everyone the same way. In fact it\u2019s arguably the single most diverse drug in terms of how it affects people on a case by case basis.   I would NEVER ever cheat on my ex girlfriend when I dated her, it was COMPLETELY out of the realm of possibility. I would have hated myself for doing something like that. Then one night? Apparently I did cheat on her, and I barely even remembered it. I had to hear it from my friends mostly. I just remember dancing with a girl at a bar and then being in the bathroom stall.   Is it fully an excuse? No, obviously not, and it\u2019s totally  reasonable to still break up after that. But it DID completely remove my judgement and basic thinking ability.   However is it reasonable to say that it might lessen the impact of cheating? Yes.   Tell me this. What would you say is worse? Finding out your gf cheated on you while extremely drunk and not really understanding what\u2019s going on? Or finding out she cheated on you sober, fully aware what she was doing and with no alcohol to influence her judgements.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7056.0,"score_ratio":3.5263157895}
+{"post_id":"9g08ez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Being drunk isn\u2019t an excuse for cheating The age old \u201cI was blackout drunk, i didnt know what i was doing\u201d doesn\u2019t sit well with me.   Why? Because I have been drunk plenty of times, to the point of being completely incomprehensible to people, to the point that i black out some memories. but I always felt \u201cin control\u201d of my decisions, during my relationships id still go clubbing and get absurdly wasted but id still never hit on anyone or kiss anyone, because I could still make conscious decisions. So the thought that someone \u201cdoesnt know what they are doing\u201d makes zero sense to me, i can\u2019t imagine being in a drunken state where i *didnt* know what i was doing.    Change my view reddit!","c_root_id_A":"e60hspb","c_root_id_B":"e60kggy","created_at_utc_A":1537005485,"created_at_utc_B":1537011114,"score_A":54,"score_B":1072,"human_ref_A":"I feel like this is less a cmv and more an r\/relationship post.   My opinion is that if someone is immature enough to cheat on you, then they are also immature enough to lie about it, to make up excuses or some justification for their actions. Next time, make better choices in picking a partner, and if a partner does cheat, expect them to justify it somehow.   It\u2019s shitty, but human nature is shitty. People used to own slaves and start wars for conquest and we still kill animals unnecessarily. Cheating is a betrayal, but hopefully that puts it into perspective and their actions don\u2019t feel as outlandish anymore.   So I guess no cmv, but more cmf (change my feelings).","human_ref_B":"Alcohol absolutely does not affect everyone the same way. In fact it\u2019s arguably the single most diverse drug in terms of how it affects people on a case by case basis.   I would NEVER ever cheat on my ex girlfriend when I dated her, it was COMPLETELY out of the realm of possibility. I would have hated myself for doing something like that. Then one night? Apparently I did cheat on her, and I barely even remembered it. I had to hear it from my friends mostly. I just remember dancing with a girl at a bar and then being in the bathroom stall.   Is it fully an excuse? No, obviously not, and it\u2019s totally  reasonable to still break up after that. But it DID completely remove my judgement and basic thinking ability.   However is it reasonable to say that it might lessen the impact of cheating? Yes.   Tell me this. What would you say is worse? Finding out your gf cheated on you while extremely drunk and not really understanding what\u2019s going on? Or finding out she cheated on you sober, fully aware what she was doing and with no alcohol to influence her judgements.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5629.0,"score_ratio":19.8518518519}
+{"post_id":"9g08ez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Being drunk isn\u2019t an excuse for cheating The age old \u201cI was blackout drunk, i didnt know what i was doing\u201d doesn\u2019t sit well with me.   Why? Because I have been drunk plenty of times, to the point of being completely incomprehensible to people, to the point that i black out some memories. but I always felt \u201cin control\u201d of my decisions, during my relationships id still go clubbing and get absurdly wasted but id still never hit on anyone or kiss anyone, because I could still make conscious decisions. So the thought that someone \u201cdoesnt know what they are doing\u201d makes zero sense to me, i can\u2019t imagine being in a drunken state where i *didnt* know what i was doing.    Change my view reddit!","c_root_id_A":"e60kggy","c_root_id_B":"e60i5ow","created_at_utc_A":1537011114,"created_at_utc_B":1537006302,"score_A":1072,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Alcohol absolutely does not affect everyone the same way. In fact it\u2019s arguably the single most diverse drug in terms of how it affects people on a case by case basis.   I would NEVER ever cheat on my ex girlfriend when I dated her, it was COMPLETELY out of the realm of possibility. I would have hated myself for doing something like that. Then one night? Apparently I did cheat on her, and I barely even remembered it. I had to hear it from my friends mostly. I just remember dancing with a girl at a bar and then being in the bathroom stall.   Is it fully an excuse? No, obviously not, and it\u2019s totally  reasonable to still break up after that. But it DID completely remove my judgement and basic thinking ability.   However is it reasonable to say that it might lessen the impact of cheating? Yes.   Tell me this. What would you say is worse? Finding out your gf cheated on you while extremely drunk and not really understanding what\u2019s going on? Or finding out she cheated on you sober, fully aware what she was doing and with no alcohol to influence her judgements.","human_ref_B":"I mean, if you're blackout drunk, you can't give consent, legally speaking. Therefore, in the eyes of the law at least, it is actually an excuse since they never consented.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4812.0,"score_ratio":97.4545454545}
+{"post_id":"9g08ez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Being drunk isn\u2019t an excuse for cheating The age old \u201cI was blackout drunk, i didnt know what i was doing\u201d doesn\u2019t sit well with me.   Why? Because I have been drunk plenty of times, to the point of being completely incomprehensible to people, to the point that i black out some memories. but I always felt \u201cin control\u201d of my decisions, during my relationships id still go clubbing and get absurdly wasted but id still never hit on anyone or kiss anyone, because I could still make conscious decisions. So the thought that someone \u201cdoesnt know what they are doing\u201d makes zero sense to me, i can\u2019t imagine being in a drunken state where i *didnt* know what i was doing.    Change my view reddit!","c_root_id_A":"e60kxys","c_root_id_B":"e60klxr","created_at_utc_A":1537011988,"created_at_utc_B":1537011394,"score_A":137,"score_B":96,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019d argue it doesn\u2019t even matter if you are in control or not.  You are responsible for how much you drank.  At some point you made a decision not to hold back and over did it.  You\u2019re responsible for the consequences of that decision.","human_ref_B":"I think it\u2019s necessary to point out the biochemical part here. No body is as the other and so the metabolism of alcohol is different for everybody. Following that it is obvious, that the effect can differ as well. So while you might be in control of your actions at all times, some others may not.   Just my view as a third year medstud","labels":1,"seconds_difference":594.0,"score_ratio":1.4270833333}
+{"post_id":"9g08ez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Being drunk isn\u2019t an excuse for cheating The age old \u201cI was blackout drunk, i didnt know what i was doing\u201d doesn\u2019t sit well with me.   Why? Because I have been drunk plenty of times, to the point of being completely incomprehensible to people, to the point that i black out some memories. but I always felt \u201cin control\u201d of my decisions, during my relationships id still go clubbing and get absurdly wasted but id still never hit on anyone or kiss anyone, because I could still make conscious decisions. So the thought that someone \u201cdoesnt know what they are doing\u201d makes zero sense to me, i can\u2019t imagine being in a drunken state where i *didnt* know what i was doing.    Change my view reddit!","c_root_id_A":"e60hspb","c_root_id_B":"e60kxys","created_at_utc_A":1537005485,"created_at_utc_B":1537011988,"score_A":54,"score_B":137,"human_ref_A":"I feel like this is less a cmv and more an r\/relationship post.   My opinion is that if someone is immature enough to cheat on you, then they are also immature enough to lie about it, to make up excuses or some justification for their actions. Next time, make better choices in picking a partner, and if a partner does cheat, expect them to justify it somehow.   It\u2019s shitty, but human nature is shitty. People used to own slaves and start wars for conquest and we still kill animals unnecessarily. Cheating is a betrayal, but hopefully that puts it into perspective and their actions don\u2019t feel as outlandish anymore.   So I guess no cmv, but more cmf (change my feelings).","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d argue it doesn\u2019t even matter if you are in control or not.  You are responsible for how much you drank.  At some point you made a decision not to hold back and over did it.  You\u2019re responsible for the consequences of that decision.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6503.0,"score_ratio":2.537037037}
+{"post_id":"9g08ez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Being drunk isn\u2019t an excuse for cheating The age old \u201cI was blackout drunk, i didnt know what i was doing\u201d doesn\u2019t sit well with me.   Why? Because I have been drunk plenty of times, to the point of being completely incomprehensible to people, to the point that i black out some memories. but I always felt \u201cin control\u201d of my decisions, during my relationships id still go clubbing and get absurdly wasted but id still never hit on anyone or kiss anyone, because I could still make conscious decisions. So the thought that someone \u201cdoesnt know what they are doing\u201d makes zero sense to me, i can\u2019t imagine being in a drunken state where i *didnt* know what i was doing.    Change my view reddit!","c_root_id_A":"e60kxys","c_root_id_B":"e60i5ow","created_at_utc_A":1537011988,"created_at_utc_B":1537006302,"score_A":137,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019d argue it doesn\u2019t even matter if you are in control or not.  You are responsible for how much you drank.  At some point you made a decision not to hold back and over did it.  You\u2019re responsible for the consequences of that decision.","human_ref_B":"I mean, if you're blackout drunk, you can't give consent, legally speaking. Therefore, in the eyes of the law at least, it is actually an excuse since they never consented.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5686.0,"score_ratio":12.4545454545}
+{"post_id":"9g08ez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Being drunk isn\u2019t an excuse for cheating The age old \u201cI was blackout drunk, i didnt know what i was doing\u201d doesn\u2019t sit well with me.   Why? Because I have been drunk plenty of times, to the point of being completely incomprehensible to people, to the point that i black out some memories. but I always felt \u201cin control\u201d of my decisions, during my relationships id still go clubbing and get absurdly wasted but id still never hit on anyone or kiss anyone, because I could still make conscious decisions. So the thought that someone \u201cdoesnt know what they are doing\u201d makes zero sense to me, i can\u2019t imagine being in a drunken state where i *didnt* know what i was doing.    Change my view reddit!","c_root_id_A":"e60hspb","c_root_id_B":"e60klxr","created_at_utc_A":1537005485,"created_at_utc_B":1537011394,"score_A":54,"score_B":96,"human_ref_A":"I feel like this is less a cmv and more an r\/relationship post.   My opinion is that if someone is immature enough to cheat on you, then they are also immature enough to lie about it, to make up excuses or some justification for their actions. Next time, make better choices in picking a partner, and if a partner does cheat, expect them to justify it somehow.   It\u2019s shitty, but human nature is shitty. People used to own slaves and start wars for conquest and we still kill animals unnecessarily. Cheating is a betrayal, but hopefully that puts it into perspective and their actions don\u2019t feel as outlandish anymore.   So I guess no cmv, but more cmf (change my feelings).","human_ref_B":"I think it\u2019s necessary to point out the biochemical part here. No body is as the other and so the metabolism of alcohol is different for everybody. Following that it is obvious, that the effect can differ as well. So while you might be in control of your actions at all times, some others may not.   Just my view as a third year medstud","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5909.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778}
+{"post_id":"9g08ez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Being drunk isn\u2019t an excuse for cheating The age old \u201cI was blackout drunk, i didnt know what i was doing\u201d doesn\u2019t sit well with me.   Why? Because I have been drunk plenty of times, to the point of being completely incomprehensible to people, to the point that i black out some memories. but I always felt \u201cin control\u201d of my decisions, during my relationships id still go clubbing and get absurdly wasted but id still never hit on anyone or kiss anyone, because I could still make conscious decisions. So the thought that someone \u201cdoesnt know what they are doing\u201d makes zero sense to me, i can\u2019t imagine being in a drunken state where i *didnt* know what i was doing.    Change my view reddit!","c_root_id_A":"e60i5ow","c_root_id_B":"e60klxr","created_at_utc_A":1537006302,"created_at_utc_B":1537011394,"score_A":11,"score_B":96,"human_ref_A":"I mean, if you're blackout drunk, you can't give consent, legally speaking. Therefore, in the eyes of the law at least, it is actually an excuse since they never consented.","human_ref_B":"I think it\u2019s necessary to point out the biochemical part here. No body is as the other and so the metabolism of alcohol is different for everybody. Following that it is obvious, that the effect can differ as well. So while you might be in control of your actions at all times, some others may not.   Just my view as a third year medstud","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5092.0,"score_ratio":8.7272727273}
+{"post_id":"9g08ez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Being drunk isn\u2019t an excuse for cheating The age old \u201cI was blackout drunk, i didnt know what i was doing\u201d doesn\u2019t sit well with me.   Why? Because I have been drunk plenty of times, to the point of being completely incomprehensible to people, to the point that i black out some memories. but I always felt \u201cin control\u201d of my decisions, during my relationships id still go clubbing and get absurdly wasted but id still never hit on anyone or kiss anyone, because I could still make conscious decisions. So the thought that someone \u201cdoesnt know what they are doing\u201d makes zero sense to me, i can\u2019t imagine being in a drunken state where i *didnt* know what i was doing.    Change my view reddit!","c_root_id_A":"e60i5ow","c_root_id_B":"e60piji","created_at_utc_A":1537006302,"created_at_utc_B":1537018510,"score_A":11,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"I mean, if you're blackout drunk, you can't give consent, legally speaking. Therefore, in the eyes of the law at least, it is actually an excuse since they never consented.","human_ref_B":"Consider this: being drunk lowers inhibitions enough that to engage in a sexual act with an intoxicated individual while sober is considered rape because the intoxicated party cannot legally consent to the act. Would the victim of the assault then in this situation be considered \u201ccheating\u201d on their significant other? In most peoples\u2019 minds, absolutely not (although I know that plenty of relationships suffer after an assault of this nature for this particular reason).    Obviously, every sexual encounter that takes place while inebriated isn\u2019t assault\u2014most can just be considered poor decision making. That said, it\u2019s incredibly difficult to dictate or predict the behavior of someone who gets drunk, how it may effect them psychologically and physically, and how it may impair them. These are all factors I think are worth considering.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12208.0,"score_ratio":4.7272727273}
+{"post_id":"6eiz58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime This assumes that he is not impeached, arrested or the trigger for a nuclear war in the meantime.  Observing Trump's actions and poll numbers, I don't think he is fully aware of what he's doing. His tweets and scandals suggest that he either lacks the intelligence or mental\/emotional stability to control himself so the scandals and problems will continue to dog his administration. This has been evident for over a year. We know that Trump is a liar and a conman and his supporters chose him to make government more effective. This strange decision is the result of poor education, misleading media and willful ignorance that will not change anytime soon.  Trump could continue to make mistakes, say controversial things, fail to pass changes to immigration or healthcare and pass a normal Republican budget. He could oversee a damaged economy and failing international security situation. He could make no major changes to the US government aside from embarrassing it and weakening the country but his supporters will continue to support him no matter what.  Most people in most western countries seem aware of Trump's failings but Republicans, for whatever reason, are not. This will not change no matter what he does.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"diarkp4","c_root_id_B":"dib5j2o","created_at_utc_A":1496280709,"created_at_utc_B":1496305991,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I almost agree with you, with the exception of \"no matter what he does in the meantime.\"   Much of Trump's base has hated Obama for the last 8+ years. Their hatred of Obama was in many cases so all-consuming that any quality of his became something to be despised. Hence the election of Trump: a person who is effectively the human antithesis of Obama. If Obama is the worst, the opposite of Obama must be amazing, right?   Their hatred for Obama extends to liberals, who they blame for electing Obama. Everything Trump does freaks liberals out and pisses them off, *and they love it.* Therefore, the one thing Trump could hypothetically do to lose the support of his base is to start acting in ways that liberals are comfortable with.   It's absolutely unthinkable at this point, but if Trump were to support liberal causes, show respect for the rule of law, and think before he speaks\/tweets, the left wouldn't have nearly as much reason to freak out about him. And if he's not pissing off liberals, what good is he to his base?  Not a realistic scenario, but nevertheless, it's a thing that could conceivably cost him the support of his base.","human_ref_B":">Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime  I agree with your outcome, but not the reasoning OP. Trump supporters\/voters are being vilified, attacked, and generally ostracized. There has been no attempt to win them over by the Democrats, in fact all they're doing is pushing them even further to Trump. What happened to \"Love Trumps Hate\"?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25282.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"6eiz58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime This assumes that he is not impeached, arrested or the trigger for a nuclear war in the meantime.  Observing Trump's actions and poll numbers, I don't think he is fully aware of what he's doing. His tweets and scandals suggest that he either lacks the intelligence or mental\/emotional stability to control himself so the scandals and problems will continue to dog his administration. This has been evident for over a year. We know that Trump is a liar and a conman and his supporters chose him to make government more effective. This strange decision is the result of poor education, misleading media and willful ignorance that will not change anytime soon.  Trump could continue to make mistakes, say controversial things, fail to pass changes to immigration or healthcare and pass a normal Republican budget. He could oversee a damaged economy and failing international security situation. He could make no major changes to the US government aside from embarrassing it and weakening the country but his supporters will continue to support him no matter what.  Most people in most western countries seem aware of Trump's failings but Republicans, for whatever reason, are not. This will not change no matter what he does.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dib5j2o","c_root_id_B":"dianzwx","created_at_utc_A":1496305991,"created_at_utc_B":1496276031,"score_A":9,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime  I agree with your outcome, but not the reasoning OP. Trump supporters\/voters are being vilified, attacked, and generally ostracized. There has been no attempt to win them over by the Democrats, in fact all they're doing is pushing them even further to Trump. What happened to \"Love Trumps Hate\"?","human_ref_B":"There's no way he runs again if he makes it to 2020 without resigning or being removed from office. His old life was just him sitting around licensing his name out and being rich. He ran for president to increase his brand capital so he could make a few deals and continue doing relatively nothing - he did not expect to, nor did he want to win, and it's very clear he hates the hell out of this job and how much work and scrutiny it is.  While he could run again and most of his gullible supporters would continue to support him, it's so unlikely he even runs that it's basically a non-issue","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29960.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"6eiz58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime This assumes that he is not impeached, arrested or the trigger for a nuclear war in the meantime.  Observing Trump's actions and poll numbers, I don't think he is fully aware of what he's doing. His tweets and scandals suggest that he either lacks the intelligence or mental\/emotional stability to control himself so the scandals and problems will continue to dog his administration. This has been evident for over a year. We know that Trump is a liar and a conman and his supporters chose him to make government more effective. This strange decision is the result of poor education, misleading media and willful ignorance that will not change anytime soon.  Trump could continue to make mistakes, say controversial things, fail to pass changes to immigration or healthcare and pass a normal Republican budget. He could oversee a damaged economy and failing international security situation. He could make no major changes to the US government aside from embarrassing it and weakening the country but his supporters will continue to support him no matter what.  Most people in most western countries seem aware of Trump's failings but Republicans, for whatever reason, are not. This will not change no matter what he does.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dib5j2o","c_root_id_B":"diangux","created_at_utc_A":1496305991,"created_at_utc_B":1496275319,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime  I agree with your outcome, but not the reasoning OP. Trump supporters\/voters are being vilified, attacked, and generally ostracized. There has been no attempt to win them over by the Democrats, in fact all they're doing is pushing them even further to Trump. What happened to \"Love Trumps Hate\"?","human_ref_B":"I would note a few things:  1. Trump maintaining just 51% of his 2016 support in 2020 would be an electoral _disaster._  If he went from 63 million votes to 32 million, and say 25 million of those went to his democratic challenger, that would be a roughly 75% to 25% demolition in the popular vote.  At that size of swing, extrapolating linearly from 2016, Trump would win 1 electoral vote in Nebraska's 3rd congressional district.  The challenger would win the other 537.  That would be the biggest landslide victory since George Washington, and he ran unopposed.  All of this to say, losing \"most\" of his supporters is not at all necessary to him losing the election very badly.  2. Presidents have had their polls crater before to where they lost support of much of their prior base.  George W. Bush got into the 20s in 2008.  The economy tanking was a big part of that.  The economy could tank again!  Not even necessarily because of anything Trump is doing - just cause recessions happen now and then.  4 years is plenty of time for a recession to happen.  Truman and Nixon both also had periods of terrible polling.  3. I think you too narrowly define \"supporters\" when you think about these things.  People who loudly support Trump are hard cases to flip - it's a big change to scrape the bumper sticker off the car.  But the proper electoral way to think of it is anyone who votes for him for any reason.   Given Trump got a higher percentage of the vote than viewed him favorably on election day, there are lots of supporters in the \"voted for him\" definition who are persuadeable that he's not good.  You just need someone who appeals to them more than Hillary Clinton did.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30672.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"6eiz58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime This assumes that he is not impeached, arrested or the trigger for a nuclear war in the meantime.  Observing Trump's actions and poll numbers, I don't think he is fully aware of what he's doing. His tweets and scandals suggest that he either lacks the intelligence or mental\/emotional stability to control himself so the scandals and problems will continue to dog his administration. This has been evident for over a year. We know that Trump is a liar and a conman and his supporters chose him to make government more effective. This strange decision is the result of poor education, misleading media and willful ignorance that will not change anytime soon.  Trump could continue to make mistakes, say controversial things, fail to pass changes to immigration or healthcare and pass a normal Republican budget. He could oversee a damaged economy and failing international security situation. He could make no major changes to the US government aside from embarrassing it and weakening the country but his supporters will continue to support him no matter what.  Most people in most western countries seem aware of Trump's failings but Republicans, for whatever reason, are not. This will not change no matter what he does.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"diapwj0","c_root_id_B":"dib5j2o","created_at_utc_A":1496278514,"created_at_utc_B":1496305991,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Trump's base can be turned but it won't be easy. They are heavily insulated and fed mountains of propaganda from conservative talk radio and Fox News.  To reach Trump supporters, you have to find a way to penetrate that sphere. To break into that target audience with liberal or moderate media. Once you do that, it's easy to sell the working class a method that a bunch of rich jackasses rigged the system to make it harder for you to get rich yourself.  The Dem message, for the most part, can work with the right wrapping paper. But the key is finding a vehicle to bring it to the Right.  In order to crush Trump's support group, the Left needs to gain a foothold in talk radio. That is an absolute MUST. Most places have no liberal talk radio or if they do it's on an obscure station. No more. Liberal networks need to do what Sinclair Media has been doing and others have been doing on the Rght and make huge media buys, putting Left-leaning hosts on popular local frequencies. That is the most important, because it gets to people on their daily commute hearing liberal talking points.   It's insane that Chicago has 2, soon to be 3 conservative talk stations and only one liberal one, which is difficult to pick up in a lot of places.   Next is finding a way to de-legitimize Fox News in their eyes, and make liberal stations appealing to conservatives. Maybe that means bombastic personality types, I'm not a media expert.   Trump's base can be destroyed, but only by breaking into their sphere of influence","human_ref_B":">Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime  I agree with your outcome, but not the reasoning OP. Trump supporters\/voters are being vilified, attacked, and generally ostracized. There has been no attempt to win them over by the Democrats, in fact all they're doing is pushing them even further to Trump. What happened to \"Love Trumps Hate\"?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27477.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"6eiz58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime This assumes that he is not impeached, arrested or the trigger for a nuclear war in the meantime.  Observing Trump's actions and poll numbers, I don't think he is fully aware of what he's doing. His tweets and scandals suggest that he either lacks the intelligence or mental\/emotional stability to control himself so the scandals and problems will continue to dog his administration. This has been evident for over a year. We know that Trump is a liar and a conman and his supporters chose him to make government more effective. This strange decision is the result of poor education, misleading media and willful ignorance that will not change anytime soon.  Trump could continue to make mistakes, say controversial things, fail to pass changes to immigration or healthcare and pass a normal Republican budget. He could oversee a damaged economy and failing international security situation. He could make no major changes to the US government aside from embarrassing it and weakening the country but his supporters will continue to support him no matter what.  Most people in most western countries seem aware of Trump's failings but Republicans, for whatever reason, are not. This will not change no matter what he does.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dianzwx","c_root_id_B":"diarkp4","created_at_utc_A":1496276031,"created_at_utc_B":1496280709,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There's no way he runs again if he makes it to 2020 without resigning or being removed from office. His old life was just him sitting around licensing his name out and being rich. He ran for president to increase his brand capital so he could make a few deals and continue doing relatively nothing - he did not expect to, nor did he want to win, and it's very clear he hates the hell out of this job and how much work and scrutiny it is.  While he could run again and most of his gullible supporters would continue to support him, it's so unlikely he even runs that it's basically a non-issue","human_ref_B":"I almost agree with you, with the exception of \"no matter what he does in the meantime.\"   Much of Trump's base has hated Obama for the last 8+ years. Their hatred of Obama was in many cases so all-consuming that any quality of his became something to be despised. Hence the election of Trump: a person who is effectively the human antithesis of Obama. If Obama is the worst, the opposite of Obama must be amazing, right?   Their hatred for Obama extends to liberals, who they blame for electing Obama. Everything Trump does freaks liberals out and pisses them off, *and they love it.* Therefore, the one thing Trump could hypothetically do to lose the support of his base is to start acting in ways that liberals are comfortable with.   It's absolutely unthinkable at this point, but if Trump were to support liberal causes, show respect for the rule of law, and think before he speaks\/tweets, the left wouldn't have nearly as much reason to freak out about him. And if he's not pissing off liberals, what good is he to his base?  Not a realistic scenario, but nevertheless, it's a thing that could conceivably cost him the support of his base.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4678.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"6eiz58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime This assumes that he is not impeached, arrested or the trigger for a nuclear war in the meantime.  Observing Trump's actions and poll numbers, I don't think he is fully aware of what he's doing. His tweets and scandals suggest that he either lacks the intelligence or mental\/emotional stability to control himself so the scandals and problems will continue to dog his administration. This has been evident for over a year. We know that Trump is a liar and a conman and his supporters chose him to make government more effective. This strange decision is the result of poor education, misleading media and willful ignorance that will not change anytime soon.  Trump could continue to make mistakes, say controversial things, fail to pass changes to immigration or healthcare and pass a normal Republican budget. He could oversee a damaged economy and failing international security situation. He could make no major changes to the US government aside from embarrassing it and weakening the country but his supporters will continue to support him no matter what.  Most people in most western countries seem aware of Trump's failings but Republicans, for whatever reason, are not. This will not change no matter what he does.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"diarkp4","c_root_id_B":"diapwj0","created_at_utc_A":1496280709,"created_at_utc_B":1496278514,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I almost agree with you, with the exception of \"no matter what he does in the meantime.\"   Much of Trump's base has hated Obama for the last 8+ years. Their hatred of Obama was in many cases so all-consuming that any quality of his became something to be despised. Hence the election of Trump: a person who is effectively the human antithesis of Obama. If Obama is the worst, the opposite of Obama must be amazing, right?   Their hatred for Obama extends to liberals, who they blame for electing Obama. Everything Trump does freaks liberals out and pisses them off, *and they love it.* Therefore, the one thing Trump could hypothetically do to lose the support of his base is to start acting in ways that liberals are comfortable with.   It's absolutely unthinkable at this point, but if Trump were to support liberal causes, show respect for the rule of law, and think before he speaks\/tweets, the left wouldn't have nearly as much reason to freak out about him. And if he's not pissing off liberals, what good is he to his base?  Not a realistic scenario, but nevertheless, it's a thing that could conceivably cost him the support of his base.","human_ref_B":"Trump's base can be turned but it won't be easy. They are heavily insulated and fed mountains of propaganda from conservative talk radio and Fox News.  To reach Trump supporters, you have to find a way to penetrate that sphere. To break into that target audience with liberal or moderate media. Once you do that, it's easy to sell the working class a method that a bunch of rich jackasses rigged the system to make it harder for you to get rich yourself.  The Dem message, for the most part, can work with the right wrapping paper. But the key is finding a vehicle to bring it to the Right.  In order to crush Trump's support group, the Left needs to gain a foothold in talk radio. That is an absolute MUST. Most places have no liberal talk radio or if they do it's on an obscure station. No more. Liberal networks need to do what Sinclair Media has been doing and others have been doing on the Rght and make huge media buys, putting Left-leaning hosts on popular local frequencies. That is the most important, because it gets to people on their daily commute hearing liberal talking points.   It's insane that Chicago has 2, soon to be 3 conservative talk stations and only one liberal one, which is difficult to pick up in a lot of places.   Next is finding a way to de-legitimize Fox News in their eyes, and make liberal stations appealing to conservatives. Maybe that means bombastic personality types, I'm not a media expert.   Trump's base can be destroyed, but only by breaking into their sphere of influence","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2195.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"6eiz58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime This assumes that he is not impeached, arrested or the trigger for a nuclear war in the meantime.  Observing Trump's actions and poll numbers, I don't think he is fully aware of what he's doing. His tweets and scandals suggest that he either lacks the intelligence or mental\/emotional stability to control himself so the scandals and problems will continue to dog his administration. This has been evident for over a year. We know that Trump is a liar and a conman and his supporters chose him to make government more effective. This strange decision is the result of poor education, misleading media and willful ignorance that will not change anytime soon.  Trump could continue to make mistakes, say controversial things, fail to pass changes to immigration or healthcare and pass a normal Republican budget. He could oversee a damaged economy and failing international security situation. He could make no major changes to the US government aside from embarrassing it and weakening the country but his supporters will continue to support him no matter what.  Most people in most western countries seem aware of Trump's failings but Republicans, for whatever reason, are not. This will not change no matter what he does.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dianzwx","c_root_id_B":"dib8zdq","created_at_utc_A":1496276031,"created_at_utc_B":1496315454,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There's no way he runs again if he makes it to 2020 without resigning or being removed from office. His old life was just him sitting around licensing his name out and being rich. He ran for president to increase his brand capital so he could make a few deals and continue doing relatively nothing - he did not expect to, nor did he want to win, and it's very clear he hates the hell out of this job and how much work and scrutiny it is.  While he could run again and most of his gullible supporters would continue to support him, it's so unlikely he even runs that it's basically a non-issue","human_ref_B":"I don't think you can take this view without looking at the next election in a complete vacuum. It is quite likely that the primary reason Trump is president is because Hillary was about the only candidate he could beat. She ran a terrible campaign, failed to turn out the \"Obama coalition\" of voters, and was disconnected from the movements that gave rise to Trump and Bernie, both of whom were \"outsiders\" in the political spectrum.  That being said, I firmly believe that if Trump fails to deliver, that is healthcare is NOT reformed in a meaningful way, immigration issues are NOT addressed, The \"working classes\" do not see significant increases in their prospects, and congress remains in a stalemate, those that supported Trump will turn on him and support a candidate that delivers on these messages. Trump was elected largely because he was viewed as a political outsider and a successful business person, qualities that resonated with a huge number of voters fed up with \"politics as usual\" and years of economic stagnation. There were plenty of very qualified republicans in the primaries, but Trump managed to beat them all as an outsider. This carried over into the general as well.  Now if you are saying that *partisans* will vote for their party rep no matter what, I don't think you are wrong. That is kind of the whole meaning of partisanship. But Trump drew a coalition of people disillusioned with how government had been working and they were voting for change more than voting for Trump. Those people won Trump the election, and he can just as easily lose them if change doesn't happen like they want to see, or if another candidate comes along they feel can do a better job of addressing their personal concerns and representing their own unique desires.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":39423.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"6eiz58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Most of Trump's supporters will continue to support him in 2020 no matter what he does in the meantime This assumes that he is not impeached, arrested or the trigger for a nuclear war in the meantime.  Observing Trump's actions and poll numbers, I don't think he is fully aware of what he's doing. His tweets and scandals suggest that he either lacks the intelligence or mental\/emotional stability to control himself so the scandals and problems will continue to dog his administration. This has been evident for over a year. We know that Trump is a liar and a conman and his supporters chose him to make government more effective. This strange decision is the result of poor education, misleading media and willful ignorance that will not change anytime soon.  Trump could continue to make mistakes, say controversial things, fail to pass changes to immigration or healthcare and pass a normal Republican budget. He could oversee a damaged economy and failing international security situation. He could make no major changes to the US government aside from embarrassing it and weakening the country but his supporters will continue to support him no matter what.  Most people in most western countries seem aware of Trump's failings but Republicans, for whatever reason, are not. This will not change no matter what he does.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"diapwj0","c_root_id_B":"dib8zdq","created_at_utc_A":1496278514,"created_at_utc_B":1496315454,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Trump's base can be turned but it won't be easy. They are heavily insulated and fed mountains of propaganda from conservative talk radio and Fox News.  To reach Trump supporters, you have to find a way to penetrate that sphere. To break into that target audience with liberal or moderate media. Once you do that, it's easy to sell the working class a method that a bunch of rich jackasses rigged the system to make it harder for you to get rich yourself.  The Dem message, for the most part, can work with the right wrapping paper. But the key is finding a vehicle to bring it to the Right.  In order to crush Trump's support group, the Left needs to gain a foothold in talk radio. That is an absolute MUST. Most places have no liberal talk radio or if they do it's on an obscure station. No more. Liberal networks need to do what Sinclair Media has been doing and others have been doing on the Rght and make huge media buys, putting Left-leaning hosts on popular local frequencies. That is the most important, because it gets to people on their daily commute hearing liberal talking points.   It's insane that Chicago has 2, soon to be 3 conservative talk stations and only one liberal one, which is difficult to pick up in a lot of places.   Next is finding a way to de-legitimize Fox News in their eyes, and make liberal stations appealing to conservatives. Maybe that means bombastic personality types, I'm not a media expert.   Trump's base can be destroyed, but only by breaking into their sphere of influence","human_ref_B":"I don't think you can take this view without looking at the next election in a complete vacuum. It is quite likely that the primary reason Trump is president is because Hillary was about the only candidate he could beat. She ran a terrible campaign, failed to turn out the \"Obama coalition\" of voters, and was disconnected from the movements that gave rise to Trump and Bernie, both of whom were \"outsiders\" in the political spectrum.  That being said, I firmly believe that if Trump fails to deliver, that is healthcare is NOT reformed in a meaningful way, immigration issues are NOT addressed, The \"working classes\" do not see significant increases in their prospects, and congress remains in a stalemate, those that supported Trump will turn on him and support a candidate that delivers on these messages. Trump was elected largely because he was viewed as a political outsider and a successful business person, qualities that resonated with a huge number of voters fed up with \"politics as usual\" and years of economic stagnation. There were plenty of very qualified republicans in the primaries, but Trump managed to beat them all as an outsider. This carried over into the general as well.  Now if you are saying that *partisans* will vote for their party rep no matter what, I don't think you are wrong. That is kind of the whole meaning of partisanship. But Trump drew a coalition of people disillusioned with how government had been working and they were voting for change more than voting for Trump. Those people won Trump the election, and he can just as easily lose them if change doesn't happen like they want to see, or if another candidate comes along they feel can do a better job of addressing their personal concerns and representing their own unique desires.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":36940.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q5bvj","c_root_id_B":"g9q4r7k","created_at_utc_A":1603424906,"created_at_utc_B":1603424552,"score_A":77,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"I get why the focus was so much on women to begin with, but from what I've seen, it *is* starting to include men as well. You're starting to see stuff like \"the idea that eating disorders and body image issues are women's issues only is especially damaging to men that struggle with them\"(actually I first saw this discussed back as early as the late 00s) and \"the super-ripped bodybuilder look is not only unrealistic but dangerous to aspire to since that's what they look like when they're nearly passed-out dehydrated and professionals only look like that for a few days a year.\"  Maybe I'm optimistic but these discussions do exist and to me it does feel like male-directed body positivity is starting to get some of the discussion it deserves.","human_ref_B":"I don't think the body positivity movement left men behind; i think men chose not to participate and so they weren't included. Its not the movement was an organized and cohesive thing with leadership and a clear goal. I don't really know if men generally really are less self conscious, so there's less need for a widesweeping movement among them) or if they just act less self conscious, but I think you have to keep in mind that the body positivity movement was primarily individuals moving in the same direction fairly independently. I don't think there was any thought about excluding people because I don't think there was any collective thought.   There was a movement of body positive among women because *they made it happen* - they saw a problem, they felt strongly about it, they addressed it, and then they shared it with other people. It's not that the movement included them and excluded men... It's that *they* were the movement.  The movement didn't focus primarily on women - it *was* women.   I don't know if I'm explaining myself clearly.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":354.0,"score_ratio":1.2222222222}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q5ahz","c_root_id_B":"g9q5bvj","created_at_utc_A":1603424880,"created_at_utc_B":1603424906,"score_A":22,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"I agree with *a lot* of what you're saying here, and that body positivity can be a positive force for people broadly.  To modify your view a bit here though:  > Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust.    and here:  > However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity   and here:  >CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men.  Who is doing the \"leaving\" \"excluding\" and \"forgetting about\" here?  Where you say:  > the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women   As far as I'm aware, social media is created by people, as is the popularity of various sites.  So, while body positivity can be a beneficial movement broadly, if it's a bottom up movement from social media, and the content isn't being created and made popular by men \/ people, then it doesn't seem fair to say \"the movement\" has excluded men or left them behind. Perhaps there just isn't as much participation from men or an audience among men (though if there is interest, there certainly could be).","human_ref_B":"I get why the focus was so much on women to begin with, but from what I've seen, it *is* starting to include men as well. You're starting to see stuff like \"the idea that eating disorders and body image issues are women's issues only is especially damaging to men that struggle with them\"(actually I first saw this discussed back as early as the late 00s) and \"the super-ripped bodybuilder look is not only unrealistic but dangerous to aspire to since that's what they look like when they're nearly passed-out dehydrated and professionals only look like that for a few days a year.\"  Maybe I'm optimistic but these discussions do exist and to me it does feel like male-directed body positivity is starting to get some of the discussion it deserves.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q4yzp","c_root_id_B":"g9q5bvj","created_at_utc_A":1603424684,"created_at_utc_B":1603424906,"score_A":12,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"*Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.*  Cool. So, if you are a man, why not set up your own social media account to promote men's body positivity?","human_ref_B":"I get why the focus was so much on women to begin with, but from what I've seen, it *is* starting to include men as well. You're starting to see stuff like \"the idea that eating disorders and body image issues are women's issues only is especially damaging to men that struggle with them\"(actually I first saw this discussed back as early as the late 00s) and \"the super-ripped bodybuilder look is not only unrealistic but dangerous to aspire to since that's what they look like when they're nearly passed-out dehydrated and professionals only look like that for a few days a year.\"  Maybe I'm optimistic but these discussions do exist and to me it does feel like male-directed body positivity is starting to get some of the discussion it deserves.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":222.0,"score_ratio":6.4166666667}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q4r7k","c_root_id_B":"g9q5eoz","created_at_utc_A":1603424552,"created_at_utc_B":1603424955,"score_A":63,"score_B":66,"human_ref_A":"I don't think the body positivity movement left men behind; i think men chose not to participate and so they weren't included. Its not the movement was an organized and cohesive thing with leadership and a clear goal. I don't really know if men generally really are less self conscious, so there's less need for a widesweeping movement among them) or if they just act less self conscious, but I think you have to keep in mind that the body positivity movement was primarily individuals moving in the same direction fairly independently. I don't think there was any thought about excluding people because I don't think there was any collective thought.   There was a movement of body positive among women because *they made it happen* - they saw a problem, they felt strongly about it, they addressed it, and then they shared it with other people. It's not that the movement included them and excluded men... It's that *they* were the movement.  The movement didn't focus primarily on women - it *was* women.   I don't know if I'm explaining myself clearly.","human_ref_B":"This says more about women\u2019s ability to network, organize and advocate for each other than anything else.  Any man could start up their own body positive organization ... if they wanted to.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":403.0,"score_ratio":1.0476190476}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q5eoz","c_root_id_B":"g9q5ahz","created_at_utc_A":1603424955,"created_at_utc_B":1603424880,"score_A":66,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"This says more about women\u2019s ability to network, organize and advocate for each other than anything else.  Any man could start up their own body positive organization ... if they wanted to.","human_ref_B":"I agree with *a lot* of what you're saying here, and that body positivity can be a positive force for people broadly.  To modify your view a bit here though:  > Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust.    and here:  > However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity   and here:  >CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men.  Who is doing the \"leaving\" \"excluding\" and \"forgetting about\" here?  Where you say:  > the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women   As far as I'm aware, social media is created by people, as is the popularity of various sites.  So, while body positivity can be a beneficial movement broadly, if it's a bottom up movement from social media, and the content isn't being created and made popular by men \/ people, then it doesn't seem fair to say \"the movement\" has excluded men or left them behind. Perhaps there just isn't as much participation from men or an audience among men (though if there is interest, there certainly could be).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":75.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q5eoz","c_root_id_B":"g9q4yzp","created_at_utc_A":1603424955,"created_at_utc_B":1603424684,"score_A":66,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"This says more about women\u2019s ability to network, organize and advocate for each other than anything else.  Any man could start up their own body positive organization ... if they wanted to.","human_ref_B":"*Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.*  Cool. So, if you are a man, why not set up your own social media account to promote men's body positivity?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":271.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9r6zyx","c_root_id_B":"g9q7alu","created_at_utc_A":1603458664,"created_at_utc_B":1603426183,"score_A":54,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"If you watch the latest Savage x Fenty show, one of the leading fashion shows in terms of body positivity atm you will see plenty of men in various body types","human_ref_B":"I feel like men have a lot of socially acceptable body types b4 they\u2019re considered not attractive. Women don\u2019t really. If you\u2019re kind of large as a women ur kind of screwed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32481.0,"score_ratio":1.3846153846}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q5ahz","c_root_id_B":"g9r6zyx","created_at_utc_A":1603424880,"created_at_utc_B":1603458664,"score_A":22,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"I agree with *a lot* of what you're saying here, and that body positivity can be a positive force for people broadly.  To modify your view a bit here though:  > Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust.    and here:  > However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity   and here:  >CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men.  Who is doing the \"leaving\" \"excluding\" and \"forgetting about\" here?  Where you say:  > the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women   As far as I'm aware, social media is created by people, as is the popularity of various sites.  So, while body positivity can be a beneficial movement broadly, if it's a bottom up movement from social media, and the content isn't being created and made popular by men \/ people, then it doesn't seem fair to say \"the movement\" has excluded men or left them behind. Perhaps there just isn't as much participation from men or an audience among men (though if there is interest, there certainly could be).","human_ref_B":"If you watch the latest Savage x Fenty show, one of the leading fashion shows in terms of body positivity atm you will see plenty of men in various body types","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33784.0,"score_ratio":2.4545454545}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9r6zyx","c_root_id_B":"g9qt2c2","created_at_utc_A":1603458664,"created_at_utc_B":1603447215,"score_A":54,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"If you watch the latest Savage x Fenty show, one of the leading fashion shows in terms of body positivity atm you will see plenty of men in various body types","human_ref_B":"There is no planet on which you would be rejected from the body positivity movement because you are male. The door is wide open for you, and you're standing outside it claiming you're being excluded.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11449.0,"score_ratio":4.1538461538}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q4yzp","c_root_id_B":"g9r6zyx","created_at_utc_A":1603424684,"created_at_utc_B":1603458664,"score_A":12,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"*Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.*  Cool. So, if you are a man, why not set up your own social media account to promote men's body positivity?","human_ref_B":"If you watch the latest Savage x Fenty show, one of the leading fashion shows in terms of body positivity atm you will see plenty of men in various body types","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33980.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9r4im5","c_root_id_B":"g9r6zyx","created_at_utc_A":1603457097,"created_at_utc_B":1603458664,"score_A":3,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"Men fall in love with their eyes but women with their ears. Male bodies aren\u2019t as important as their brains. I think it\u2019s much worse the other way around!","human_ref_B":"If you watch the latest Savage x Fenty show, one of the leading fashion shows in terms of body positivity atm you will see plenty of men in various body types","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1567.0,"score_ratio":18.0}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q5ahz","c_root_id_B":"g9q7alu","created_at_utc_A":1603424880,"created_at_utc_B":1603426183,"score_A":22,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"I agree with *a lot* of what you're saying here, and that body positivity can be a positive force for people broadly.  To modify your view a bit here though:  > Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust.    and here:  > However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity   and here:  >CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men.  Who is doing the \"leaving\" \"excluding\" and \"forgetting about\" here?  Where you say:  > the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women   As far as I'm aware, social media is created by people, as is the popularity of various sites.  So, while body positivity can be a beneficial movement broadly, if it's a bottom up movement from social media, and the content isn't being created and made popular by men \/ people, then it doesn't seem fair to say \"the movement\" has excluded men or left them behind. Perhaps there just isn't as much participation from men or an audience among men (though if there is interest, there certainly could be).","human_ref_B":"I feel like men have a lot of socially acceptable body types b4 they\u2019re considered not attractive. Women don\u2019t really. If you\u2019re kind of large as a women ur kind of screwed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1303.0,"score_ratio":1.7727272727}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q4yzp","c_root_id_B":"g9q7alu","created_at_utc_A":1603424684,"created_at_utc_B":1603426183,"score_A":12,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"*Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.*  Cool. So, if you are a man, why not set up your own social media account to promote men's body positivity?","human_ref_B":"I feel like men have a lot of socially acceptable body types b4 they\u2019re considered not attractive. Women don\u2019t really. If you\u2019re kind of large as a women ur kind of screwed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1499.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rby69","c_root_id_B":"g9q5ahz","created_at_utc_A":1603461532,"created_at_utc_B":1603424880,"score_A":28,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Body positivity is not as big a deal with men as it is with women, because the cultural requirements of \"looking perfect\" were much stronger for women than for men.   In music, for example, the joke about there being no \"ugly\" women performers has more than a grain of truth to it. Women performers are expected to wear revealing costumes, perform amazing dance moves, and sing at the same time. For men, it's becoming more expected, but there are still some very ugly male singers out there.   In fashion in the office, men can get away with a very simple formula of suit and tie, or at least a button down shirt, and khaki pants. Business or business casual dress for women is much more complicated.","human_ref_B":"I agree with *a lot* of what you're saying here, and that body positivity can be a positive force for people broadly.  To modify your view a bit here though:  > Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust.    and here:  > However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity   and here:  >CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men.  Who is doing the \"leaving\" \"excluding\" and \"forgetting about\" here?  Where you say:  > the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women   As far as I'm aware, social media is created by people, as is the popularity of various sites.  So, while body positivity can be a beneficial movement broadly, if it's a bottom up movement from social media, and the content isn't being created and made popular by men \/ people, then it doesn't seem fair to say \"the movement\" has excluded men or left them behind. Perhaps there just isn't as much participation from men or an audience among men (though if there is interest, there certainly could be).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":36652.0,"score_ratio":1.2727272727}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rby69","c_root_id_B":"g9qt2c2","created_at_utc_A":1603461532,"created_at_utc_B":1603447215,"score_A":28,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Body positivity is not as big a deal with men as it is with women, because the cultural requirements of \"looking perfect\" were much stronger for women than for men.   In music, for example, the joke about there being no \"ugly\" women performers has more than a grain of truth to it. Women performers are expected to wear revealing costumes, perform amazing dance moves, and sing at the same time. For men, it's becoming more expected, but there are still some very ugly male singers out there.   In fashion in the office, men can get away with a very simple formula of suit and tie, or at least a button down shirt, and khaki pants. Business or business casual dress for women is much more complicated.","human_ref_B":"There is no planet on which you would be rejected from the body positivity movement because you are male. The door is wide open for you, and you're standing outside it claiming you're being excluded.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14317.0,"score_ratio":2.1538461538}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rby69","c_root_id_B":"g9q4yzp","created_at_utc_A":1603461532,"created_at_utc_B":1603424684,"score_A":28,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Body positivity is not as big a deal with men as it is with women, because the cultural requirements of \"looking perfect\" were much stronger for women than for men.   In music, for example, the joke about there being no \"ugly\" women performers has more than a grain of truth to it. Women performers are expected to wear revealing costumes, perform amazing dance moves, and sing at the same time. For men, it's becoming more expected, but there are still some very ugly male singers out there.   In fashion in the office, men can get away with a very simple formula of suit and tie, or at least a button down shirt, and khaki pants. Business or business casual dress for women is much more complicated.","human_ref_B":"*Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.*  Cool. So, if you are a man, why not set up your own social media account to promote men's body positivity?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":36848.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9r4im5","c_root_id_B":"g9rby69","created_at_utc_A":1603457097,"created_at_utc_B":1603461532,"score_A":3,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Men fall in love with their eyes but women with their ears. Male bodies aren\u2019t as important as their brains. I think it\u2019s much worse the other way around!","human_ref_B":"Body positivity is not as big a deal with men as it is with women, because the cultural requirements of \"looking perfect\" were much stronger for women than for men.   In music, for example, the joke about there being no \"ugly\" women performers has more than a grain of truth to it. Women performers are expected to wear revealing costumes, perform amazing dance moves, and sing at the same time. For men, it's becoming more expected, but there are still some very ugly male singers out there.   In fashion in the office, men can get away with a very simple formula of suit and tie, or at least a button down shirt, and khaki pants. Business or business casual dress for women is much more complicated.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4435.0,"score_ratio":9.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q4yzp","c_root_id_B":"g9q5ahz","created_at_utc_A":1603424684,"created_at_utc_B":1603424880,"score_A":12,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"*Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.*  Cool. So, if you are a man, why not set up your own social media account to promote men's body positivity?","human_ref_B":"I agree with *a lot* of what you're saying here, and that body positivity can be a positive force for people broadly.  To modify your view a bit here though:  > Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust.    and here:  > However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity   and here:  >CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men.  Who is doing the \"leaving\" \"excluding\" and \"forgetting about\" here?  Where you say:  > the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women   As far as I'm aware, social media is created by people, as is the popularity of various sites.  So, while body positivity can be a beneficial movement broadly, if it's a bottom up movement from social media, and the content isn't being created and made popular by men \/ people, then it doesn't seem fair to say \"the movement\" has excluded men or left them behind. Perhaps there just isn't as much participation from men or an audience among men (though if there is interest, there certainly could be).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":196.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rp5su","c_root_id_B":"g9qt2c2","created_at_utc_A":1603468456,"created_at_utc_B":1603447215,"score_A":18,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"In our culture, men have never been stigmatized for being overweight in the same way that women have been. You can find countless movies and sitcoms where a fat male character has a fit and attractive wife (ex: King of Queens) but you would never find a situation where a fit guy is with a fat woman. Men being overweight has always been seen as a fact of life. Women being overweight has been treated like a transgression. It\u2019s no wonder that the body pos movement finds more traction with women.","human_ref_B":"There is no planet on which you would be rejected from the body positivity movement because you are male. The door is wide open for you, and you're standing outside it claiming you're being excluded.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21241.0,"score_ratio":1.3846153846}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q4yzp","c_root_id_B":"g9rp5su","created_at_utc_A":1603424684,"created_at_utc_B":1603468456,"score_A":12,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"*Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.*  Cool. So, if you are a man, why not set up your own social media account to promote men's body positivity?","human_ref_B":"In our culture, men have never been stigmatized for being overweight in the same way that women have been. You can find countless movies and sitcoms where a fat male character has a fit and attractive wife (ex: King of Queens) but you would never find a situation where a fit guy is with a fat woman. Men being overweight has always been seen as a fact of life. Women being overweight has been treated like a transgression. It\u2019s no wonder that the body pos movement finds more traction with women.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":43772.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rp5su","c_root_id_B":"g9rknz7","created_at_utc_A":1603468456,"created_at_utc_B":1603466187,"score_A":18,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"In our culture, men have never been stigmatized for being overweight in the same way that women have been. You can find countless movies and sitcoms where a fat male character has a fit and attractive wife (ex: King of Queens) but you would never find a situation where a fit guy is with a fat woman. Men being overweight has always been seen as a fact of life. Women being overweight has been treated like a transgression. It\u2019s no wonder that the body pos movement finds more traction with women.","human_ref_B":"To be perfectly honest I just don't think we guys care that much about it to do something like this, and when we do care enough we tend not to talk about it and instead prefer to do something to fix the situation instead.  I am of the opinion that men and women are behaviourally different, (what you caulk that up to is your own opinion) however a movement created and maintained by women is never to sit well with the needs of men, and vice versa...  &#x200B;  >I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.)  I don't think it's a societal expectation but instead an emergent property of the fact that a lot of men generally don't actually care quite so much about their appearance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2269.0,"score_ratio":3.6}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rp5su","c_root_id_B":"g9r4im5","created_at_utc_A":1603468456,"created_at_utc_B":1603457097,"score_A":18,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"In our culture, men have never been stigmatized for being overweight in the same way that women have been. You can find countless movies and sitcoms where a fat male character has a fit and attractive wife (ex: King of Queens) but you would never find a situation where a fit guy is with a fat woman. Men being overweight has always been seen as a fact of life. Women being overweight has been treated like a transgression. It\u2019s no wonder that the body pos movement finds more traction with women.","human_ref_B":"Men fall in love with their eyes but women with their ears. Male bodies aren\u2019t as important as their brains. I think it\u2019s much worse the other way around!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11359.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rhan6","c_root_id_B":"g9rp5su","created_at_utc_A":1603464446,"created_at_utc_B":1603468456,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"but the body positive movement has NOT been beneficial. it has led to a rise on obesity and heart disease, diabetes, and other health issues that arrive. the body positive movement is a sham and needs to go away.","human_ref_B":"In our culture, men have never been stigmatized for being overweight in the same way that women have been. You can find countless movies and sitcoms where a fat male character has a fit and attractive wife (ex: King of Queens) but you would never find a situation where a fit guy is with a fat woman. Men being overweight has always been seen as a fact of life. Women being overweight has been treated like a transgression. It\u2019s no wonder that the body pos movement finds more traction with women.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4010.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rik4w","c_root_id_B":"g9rp5su","created_at_utc_A":1603465102,"created_at_utc_B":1603468456,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"This depends on how someone has constructed their online sphere of influence. I hesitate to make sweeping claims of quantity when I can't quantify any data, but it seems most people here have experienced more female-directed body-positivity than male.  However, there no lack of male body-positivity on the internet. It's viewership often depends on who tunes in.  Plus-size male model Tevin Evans does awesome work in challenging conventional male beauty.  The rise in popularity of \"dad-bods\") is nothing to sneeze at (I count myself a fan!)  Blackbear & TMG's \"Short King Anthem\", as well as Twitters embrace of the term \"short king\" is a powerful counter to the criticism of men who don't seem to be tall enough for some people.","human_ref_B":"In our culture, men have never been stigmatized for being overweight in the same way that women have been. You can find countless movies and sitcoms where a fat male character has a fit and attractive wife (ex: King of Queens) but you would never find a situation where a fit guy is with a fat woman. Men being overweight has always been seen as a fact of life. Women being overweight has been treated like a transgression. It\u2019s no wonder that the body pos movement finds more traction with women.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3354.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9q4yzp","c_root_id_B":"g9qt2c2","created_at_utc_A":1603424684,"created_at_utc_B":1603447215,"score_A":12,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"*Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.*  Cool. So, if you are a man, why not set up your own social media account to promote men's body positivity?","human_ref_B":"There is no planet on which you would be rejected from the body positivity movement because you are male. The door is wide open for you, and you're standing outside it claiming you're being excluded.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22531.0,"score_ratio":1.0833333333}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rknz7","c_root_id_B":"g9r4im5","created_at_utc_A":1603466187,"created_at_utc_B":1603457097,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"To be perfectly honest I just don't think we guys care that much about it to do something like this, and when we do care enough we tend not to talk about it and instead prefer to do something to fix the situation instead.  I am of the opinion that men and women are behaviourally different, (what you caulk that up to is your own opinion) however a movement created and maintained by women is never to sit well with the needs of men, and vice versa...  &#x200B;  >I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.)  I don't think it's a societal expectation but instead an emergent property of the fact that a lot of men generally don't actually care quite so much about their appearance.","human_ref_B":"Men fall in love with their eyes but women with their ears. Male bodies aren\u2019t as important as their brains. I think it\u2019s much worse the other way around!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9090.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rknz7","c_root_id_B":"g9rhan6","created_at_utc_A":1603466187,"created_at_utc_B":1603464446,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"To be perfectly honest I just don't think we guys care that much about it to do something like this, and when we do care enough we tend not to talk about it and instead prefer to do something to fix the situation instead.  I am of the opinion that men and women are behaviourally different, (what you caulk that up to is your own opinion) however a movement created and maintained by women is never to sit well with the needs of men, and vice versa...  &#x200B;  >I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.)  I don't think it's a societal expectation but instead an emergent property of the fact that a lot of men generally don't actually care quite so much about their appearance.","human_ref_B":"but the body positive movement has NOT been beneficial. it has led to a rise on obesity and heart disease, diabetes, and other health issues that arrive. the body positive movement is a sham and needs to go away.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1741.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rik4w","c_root_id_B":"g9rknz7","created_at_utc_A":1603465102,"created_at_utc_B":1603466187,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This depends on how someone has constructed their online sphere of influence. I hesitate to make sweeping claims of quantity when I can't quantify any data, but it seems most people here have experienced more female-directed body-positivity than male.  However, there no lack of male body-positivity on the internet. It's viewership often depends on who tunes in.  Plus-size male model Tevin Evans does awesome work in challenging conventional male beauty.  The rise in popularity of \"dad-bods\") is nothing to sneeze at (I count myself a fan!)  Blackbear & TMG's \"Short King Anthem\", as well as Twitters embrace of the term \"short king\" is a powerful counter to the criticism of men who don't seem to be tall enough for some people.","human_ref_B":"To be perfectly honest I just don't think we guys care that much about it to do something like this, and when we do care enough we tend not to talk about it and instead prefer to do something to fix the situation instead.  I am of the opinion that men and women are behaviourally different, (what you caulk that up to is your own opinion) however a movement created and maintained by women is never to sit well with the needs of men, and vice versa...  &#x200B;  >I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.)  I don't think it's a societal expectation but instead an emergent property of the fact that a lot of men generally don't actually care quite so much about their appearance.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1085.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rv78z","c_root_id_B":"g9rhan6","created_at_utc_A":1603471441,"created_at_utc_B":1603464446,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I think from an evolutionary standpoint, men can make up for less then ideal physical attractiveness by increasing their ability to obtain and provide resources. For women its harder to make up for physical imperfections with regards to finding and attracting a potential mate.  When women say that \"more of my self worth is based on my body\" what they are really saying is \"my ability to reproduce is much more dependent on my physical attractiveness than a man\". Body positivity can be viewed as a way for women to find peace and acceptance with the evolutionary forces that have shaped gender and mating dynamics through the eons.","human_ref_B":"but the body positive movement has NOT been beneficial. it has led to a rise on obesity and heart disease, diabetes, and other health issues that arrive. the body positive movement is a sham and needs to go away.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6995.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"jgf66s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to  cellulite - and I\u2019m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves.   Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks.   Men\u2019s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.)  Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting some incel-mindset \u201cthese men don\u2019t deserve love\u201d or \u201cbeta versus alpha\u201d propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support,  but the last bit discussion about men\u2019s bodies had to do with the \u201cdad-bod\u201d craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women.  I speculate these things don\u2019t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly\/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity.  With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the \u201cmovement\u201d of body positivity has long since left men behind.","c_root_id_A":"g9rik4w","c_root_id_B":"g9rv78z","created_at_utc_A":1603465102,"created_at_utc_B":1603471441,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This depends on how someone has constructed their online sphere of influence. I hesitate to make sweeping claims of quantity when I can't quantify any data, but it seems most people here have experienced more female-directed body-positivity than male.  However, there no lack of male body-positivity on the internet. It's viewership often depends on who tunes in.  Plus-size male model Tevin Evans does awesome work in challenging conventional male beauty.  The rise in popularity of \"dad-bods\") is nothing to sneeze at (I count myself a fan!)  Blackbear & TMG's \"Short King Anthem\", as well as Twitters embrace of the term \"short king\" is a powerful counter to the criticism of men who don't seem to be tall enough for some people.","human_ref_B":"I think from an evolutionary standpoint, men can make up for less then ideal physical attractiveness by increasing their ability to obtain and provide resources. For women its harder to make up for physical imperfections with regards to finding and attracting a potential mate.  When women say that \"more of my self worth is based on my body\" what they are really saying is \"my ability to reproduce is much more dependent on my physical attractiveness than a man\". Body positivity can be viewed as a way for women to find peace and acceptance with the evolutionary forces that have shaped gender and mating dynamics through the eons.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6339.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"fxlph7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders lost because he was not a good presidential candidate This is going to controversial on Reddit, but I don't care. I genuinely think that Bernie Sanders lost because he was not a good a presidential candidate this election cycle. He really ran a bad campaign and lost on his own merits.  In 2016, the Bernie campaign was a beast. It was relatable, it was energetic, and it fought for things that people wanted. He kept his campaign short and focused. His campaign tuned in on a few big policies people cared about (medicare for all, free collage for all, $15\/h min wage). His 2020 campaign is a shell of that. The way he ran and branded his 2020 campaign was a failure by the numbers. His polling stagnated and never grew until all the other candidates dropped out, and it only increased by a bit relatively speaking. He also lost all the key states and either lost or had a smaller win in many of the states that he dominated in 2016.  But beyond this, Bernie proved himself to be a bad candidate. For starters, he ignored the American people. Americans want a healthcare system that is universal and affordable, but they didn't want the private healthcare to be eliminated. What did Bernie do? He doubled down on eliminating private healthcare. His platform took another hit when he added ludicrous things like a federal job guarantee and housing for all as actual policies. He also gave the finger to a lot of his supporters when he literally went out and praised Fidel Castro. Like he gave his opponents all they need to justify their claims that he's a socialist. Him doubling down on calling himself a democratic socialist (and before you start, and I KNOW that some of you will. Social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same and they are NOT interchangeable) didn't help either.  But beyond questionable labels and policies, the thing that really screwed him is his base. Bernie is divisive character. His entire platform revolves around the rich vs the poor and most of his speeches have him demonizing the right (which made them double down). This type of attitude is reflected in his base who have become the most toxic supporters of any candidate in the 2020 election, including Trump. They have attacked every single candidate and their supporters. Warren, Pete, Yang, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Biden, Harris, etc. This isn't a few bad eggs, this sort of behavior is the norm irl and online. They attack (not criticize, attack) the candidate's integrity, the intelligence of their supporters, the candidate's human decency, etc. And when a candidate does drop out they come in demanding support. It's not only the candidates, this behavior also applies the voting blocs. If you were a moderate, then you were demonized for not caring about others. If you were a right winger, you were just straight up evil. If you were a progressive who didn't support Bernie, then you were branded as a traitor or a snake. If you're slightly critical of Bernie then you're branded as a Trump supporter. Oh, and whenever something doesn't go their way it's always either Bernie getting cheated or some grand conspiracy involving the establishment (Deep State 2: Electric boogaloo). This is a really big problem and everybody knows it, and Bernie did nothing about it. This frustrated and turned away enough people to the point where winning the election wasn't possible for him.  Bernie losing in 2020 is all on him and his supporters. He wasn't a good candidate, he didn't run a good campaign, and he didn't have a friendly base.  I know a lot of my statements are vague and all over the place, but I'm more happy to go in depth. This post hasn't been a draft for months now, and I just wanted to share my thoughts.  Also please try to avoid whataboutism, this post is solely about Bernie. So try to avoid things like:  \\>but what about Trump  \\>but what about Biden  \\>but what about the lesser of all evils  These are irrelevant. Anyway, CMV","c_root_id_A":"fmv7lx8","c_root_id_B":"fmv8mva","created_at_utc_A":1586408250,"created_at_utc_B":1586409077,"score_A":4,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"The thread title is a tautology. Any losing candidate must not have been a good candidate (or else they wouldn't have lost.) Do you have an example in mind of a candidate who lost that was a \"good candidate?\"","human_ref_B":"Just the mere fact that Bernie was able to distinguish himself so clearly from a field of 29 different major democratic candidates to a position that forced moderates to rally behind Biden or else lose to Bernie I think speaks volumes.  Coming in 2nd place out of 29 is an incredibly good showing.  While I personally wasn't a fan of Bernie's universal healthcare proposal, it was still an important keystone to his campaign that helped distinguish him from the other candidates at a time when that was both very important and very difficult and that many of his supporters clung to and still cling to as an important policy change that they believe *needs* to happen.  Even without a successful presidential nomination, he still did a lot to popularize his policy goals.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":827.0,"score_ratio":8.5}
+{"post_id":"fxlph7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders lost because he was not a good presidential candidate This is going to controversial on Reddit, but I don't care. I genuinely think that Bernie Sanders lost because he was not a good a presidential candidate this election cycle. He really ran a bad campaign and lost on his own merits.  In 2016, the Bernie campaign was a beast. It was relatable, it was energetic, and it fought for things that people wanted. He kept his campaign short and focused. His campaign tuned in on a few big policies people cared about (medicare for all, free collage for all, $15\/h min wage). His 2020 campaign is a shell of that. The way he ran and branded his 2020 campaign was a failure by the numbers. His polling stagnated and never grew until all the other candidates dropped out, and it only increased by a bit relatively speaking. He also lost all the key states and either lost or had a smaller win in many of the states that he dominated in 2016.  But beyond this, Bernie proved himself to be a bad candidate. For starters, he ignored the American people. Americans want a healthcare system that is universal and affordable, but they didn't want the private healthcare to be eliminated. What did Bernie do? He doubled down on eliminating private healthcare. His platform took another hit when he added ludicrous things like a federal job guarantee and housing for all as actual policies. He also gave the finger to a lot of his supporters when he literally went out and praised Fidel Castro. Like he gave his opponents all they need to justify their claims that he's a socialist. Him doubling down on calling himself a democratic socialist (and before you start, and I KNOW that some of you will. Social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same and they are NOT interchangeable) didn't help either.  But beyond questionable labels and policies, the thing that really screwed him is his base. Bernie is divisive character. His entire platform revolves around the rich vs the poor and most of his speeches have him demonizing the right (which made them double down). This type of attitude is reflected in his base who have become the most toxic supporters of any candidate in the 2020 election, including Trump. They have attacked every single candidate and their supporters. Warren, Pete, Yang, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Biden, Harris, etc. This isn't a few bad eggs, this sort of behavior is the norm irl and online. They attack (not criticize, attack) the candidate's integrity, the intelligence of their supporters, the candidate's human decency, etc. And when a candidate does drop out they come in demanding support. It's not only the candidates, this behavior also applies the voting blocs. If you were a moderate, then you were demonized for not caring about others. If you were a right winger, you were just straight up evil. If you were a progressive who didn't support Bernie, then you were branded as a traitor or a snake. If you're slightly critical of Bernie then you're branded as a Trump supporter. Oh, and whenever something doesn't go their way it's always either Bernie getting cheated or some grand conspiracy involving the establishment (Deep State 2: Electric boogaloo). This is a really big problem and everybody knows it, and Bernie did nothing about it. This frustrated and turned away enough people to the point where winning the election wasn't possible for him.  Bernie losing in 2020 is all on him and his supporters. He wasn't a good candidate, he didn't run a good campaign, and he didn't have a friendly base.  I know a lot of my statements are vague and all over the place, but I'm more happy to go in depth. This post hasn't been a draft for months now, and I just wanted to share my thoughts.  Also please try to avoid whataboutism, this post is solely about Bernie. So try to avoid things like:  \\>but what about Trump  \\>but what about Biden  \\>but what about the lesser of all evils  These are irrelevant. Anyway, CMV","c_root_id_A":"fmv7lx8","c_root_id_B":"fmvgt9v","created_at_utc_A":1586408250,"created_at_utc_B":1586416474,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The thread title is a tautology. Any losing candidate must not have been a good candidate (or else they wouldn't have lost.) Do you have an example in mind of a candidate who lost that was a \"good candidate?\"","human_ref_B":"I certainly don\u2019t fully disagree with you, but I think you\u2019re somewhat underestimating the degree to which A) some of these traits that were ultimately limiting were also the very reason that he was able to achieve the type of success he was able to achieve in the first place and B) what Sanders was running against was huge.  With regard to the first point, Sanders was a candidate who put ideology and principle first.  I really think that in attitude and approach he is an activist first and a politician second.  While that did hugely limit him in ways that you identify, I think that it was also an instrumental part of his success.  Particularly in a moment when there\u2019s so much suspicion of the broader political system, Sanders ideological consistency was a huge appeal to a lot of people.  I feel like if you take that away, he doesn't offer much.  He's not a detailed policy expert, he's not particularly charming, he's not an amazing rhetorician.  Like I say, I don't disagree that his steadfast ideology-first approach was ultimately limiting, I also think it was the very thing that allowed him to achieve his success in the first place.  I guess you could say that makes him a bad candidate, there's also an argument it makes him a good one.  The really charming politician gets to tell people what they want to hear, and everyone loves them for it.  The old-school NY jewish dude who sounds like your angry grandpa every time he speaks, doesn't have that same luxury.    And with the second point, I think it\u2019s important to note the degree to which Sanders was running on a platform of dismantling massive mechanisms of systemic influence on American society.  Those mechanisms and systems unquestionably fought back against him.  I agree that a lot of Sanders supporters treat it as a conspiracy, which is silly, and act as if it\u2019s some surprising injustice, which feels naive at best.  To put it bluntly, if you fight the system, then *of course* the system fights back.  That said, that systemic force also put him in opposition to *so* *much* more than most, if not all, of the other candidates. In other words, it doesn\u2019t have to be a conspiracy to acknowledge that many of the major mechanisms of social influence in American society were directed toward Sanders losing.  In short: He fought the law and the law won.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8224.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"fxlph7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders lost because he was not a good presidential candidate This is going to controversial on Reddit, but I don't care. I genuinely think that Bernie Sanders lost because he was not a good a presidential candidate this election cycle. He really ran a bad campaign and lost on his own merits.  In 2016, the Bernie campaign was a beast. It was relatable, it was energetic, and it fought for things that people wanted. He kept his campaign short and focused. His campaign tuned in on a few big policies people cared about (medicare for all, free collage for all, $15\/h min wage). His 2020 campaign is a shell of that. The way he ran and branded his 2020 campaign was a failure by the numbers. His polling stagnated and never grew until all the other candidates dropped out, and it only increased by a bit relatively speaking. He also lost all the key states and either lost or had a smaller win in many of the states that he dominated in 2016.  But beyond this, Bernie proved himself to be a bad candidate. For starters, he ignored the American people. Americans want a healthcare system that is universal and affordable, but they didn't want the private healthcare to be eliminated. What did Bernie do? He doubled down on eliminating private healthcare. His platform took another hit when he added ludicrous things like a federal job guarantee and housing for all as actual policies. He also gave the finger to a lot of his supporters when he literally went out and praised Fidel Castro. Like he gave his opponents all they need to justify their claims that he's a socialist. Him doubling down on calling himself a democratic socialist (and before you start, and I KNOW that some of you will. Social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same and they are NOT interchangeable) didn't help either.  But beyond questionable labels and policies, the thing that really screwed him is his base. Bernie is divisive character. His entire platform revolves around the rich vs the poor and most of his speeches have him demonizing the right (which made them double down). This type of attitude is reflected in his base who have become the most toxic supporters of any candidate in the 2020 election, including Trump. They have attacked every single candidate and their supporters. Warren, Pete, Yang, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Biden, Harris, etc. This isn't a few bad eggs, this sort of behavior is the norm irl and online. They attack (not criticize, attack) the candidate's integrity, the intelligence of their supporters, the candidate's human decency, etc. And when a candidate does drop out they come in demanding support. It's not only the candidates, this behavior also applies the voting blocs. If you were a moderate, then you were demonized for not caring about others. If you were a right winger, you were just straight up evil. If you were a progressive who didn't support Bernie, then you were branded as a traitor or a snake. If you're slightly critical of Bernie then you're branded as a Trump supporter. Oh, and whenever something doesn't go their way it's always either Bernie getting cheated or some grand conspiracy involving the establishment (Deep State 2: Electric boogaloo). This is a really big problem and everybody knows it, and Bernie did nothing about it. This frustrated and turned away enough people to the point where winning the election wasn't possible for him.  Bernie losing in 2020 is all on him and his supporters. He wasn't a good candidate, he didn't run a good campaign, and he didn't have a friendly base.  I know a lot of my statements are vague and all over the place, but I'm more happy to go in depth. This post hasn't been a draft for months now, and I just wanted to share my thoughts.  Also please try to avoid whataboutism, this post is solely about Bernie. So try to avoid things like:  \\>but what about Trump  \\>but what about Biden  \\>but what about the lesser of all evils  These are irrelevant. Anyway, CMV","c_root_id_A":"fmvlqpw","c_root_id_B":"fmv7lx8","created_at_utc_A":1586421618,"created_at_utc_B":1586408250,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"So you seem to having two cornerstones of your argument:  1) Sanders was too radical and it hurt him politically  and   2) Sanders and his base were too divisive and their aggression towards other candidates hurt him politically  &#x200B;  On point 1, I would argue that Sanders radical policy agenda was what kept him afloat in a super crowded field with many well known contenders. The main problem most of the candidates faced was how to distinguish themselves from the rest of the field. Why should I vote for you and not the other 20+ people? (Kamala Harris is imo the best example of a candidate hurt by this). Bernie always had the easiest time answering these questions: Why vote for him? He has the most radical progressive agenda to transform America. Why not anyone else? Their plans are not as bold and ambitious as his are. This positioning was powerful and kept him in the center of attention at all times. Being the boldest was a political branding and it was a smart one in the context of the 2020 primary.  &#x200B;  On point 2, I would argue as others have, that Sanders isn't responsible for how his supporters act and it would seem that you have met a very poor selection of them if this is your impression. Sanders supporters come from all walks of life, some are dicks, some are wonderful. I see no reason to suppose that Sanders supporters are inherently more vitriolic than supporters of other candidates. He has lots of ardent followers, crowds bring in douchebags, its a fact of life.  &#x200B;  In terms of what Sanders himself did in this election cycle I thought his messaging was superb. When asked questions that begged him to attack the other candidates, he usually said a line about how he respected them and thought they were good people and then pivoted right back to his message and his policies. Any attacks he made were about voting records and where people were fundraising from which both feel like fair critiques.  &#x200B;  I do agree with a piece of your second point and it is one of my main frustrations with the campaign as a Warren\/Sanders fan who ended up voting Sanders when it was clear he had the best shot. Some of Bernie's surrogates were out of control spreading misinformation all over social media. Its dangerous to start claiming that Pete Buttigieg, mayor of a small city and no name up until a year and a half ago, rigged the Iowa caucuses because he purchased technology from the same company that the Iowa Democratic Committee hired to create an app that failed. It's baseless and sows distrust in our democracy. Bernie should have shut those people down immediately because, unlike bad supporters, these people are within his sphere of influence.  &#x200B;  Do I think this cost him the election though? Nope, I think he lost cause people are terrified of Trump and are voting conservatively, he was kind of doomed from the get go.","human_ref_B":"The thread title is a tautology. Any losing candidate must not have been a good candidate (or else they wouldn't have lost.) Do you have an example in mind of a candidate who lost that was a \"good candidate?\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13368.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"fxlph7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders lost because he was not a good presidential candidate This is going to controversial on Reddit, but I don't care. I genuinely think that Bernie Sanders lost because he was not a good a presidential candidate this election cycle. He really ran a bad campaign and lost on his own merits.  In 2016, the Bernie campaign was a beast. It was relatable, it was energetic, and it fought for things that people wanted. He kept his campaign short and focused. His campaign tuned in on a few big policies people cared about (medicare for all, free collage for all, $15\/h min wage). His 2020 campaign is a shell of that. The way he ran and branded his 2020 campaign was a failure by the numbers. His polling stagnated and never grew until all the other candidates dropped out, and it only increased by a bit relatively speaking. He also lost all the key states and either lost or had a smaller win in many of the states that he dominated in 2016.  But beyond this, Bernie proved himself to be a bad candidate. For starters, he ignored the American people. Americans want a healthcare system that is universal and affordable, but they didn't want the private healthcare to be eliminated. What did Bernie do? He doubled down on eliminating private healthcare. His platform took another hit when he added ludicrous things like a federal job guarantee and housing for all as actual policies. He also gave the finger to a lot of his supporters when he literally went out and praised Fidel Castro. Like he gave his opponents all they need to justify their claims that he's a socialist. Him doubling down on calling himself a democratic socialist (and before you start, and I KNOW that some of you will. Social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same and they are NOT interchangeable) didn't help either.  But beyond questionable labels and policies, the thing that really screwed him is his base. Bernie is divisive character. His entire platform revolves around the rich vs the poor and most of his speeches have him demonizing the right (which made them double down). This type of attitude is reflected in his base who have become the most toxic supporters of any candidate in the 2020 election, including Trump. They have attacked every single candidate and their supporters. Warren, Pete, Yang, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Biden, Harris, etc. This isn't a few bad eggs, this sort of behavior is the norm irl and online. They attack (not criticize, attack) the candidate's integrity, the intelligence of their supporters, the candidate's human decency, etc. And when a candidate does drop out they come in demanding support. It's not only the candidates, this behavior also applies the voting blocs. If you were a moderate, then you were demonized for not caring about others. If you were a right winger, you were just straight up evil. If you were a progressive who didn't support Bernie, then you were branded as a traitor or a snake. If you're slightly critical of Bernie then you're branded as a Trump supporter. Oh, and whenever something doesn't go their way it's always either Bernie getting cheated or some grand conspiracy involving the establishment (Deep State 2: Electric boogaloo). This is a really big problem and everybody knows it, and Bernie did nothing about it. This frustrated and turned away enough people to the point where winning the election wasn't possible for him.  Bernie losing in 2020 is all on him and his supporters. He wasn't a good candidate, he didn't run a good campaign, and he didn't have a friendly base.  I know a lot of my statements are vague and all over the place, but I'm more happy to go in depth. This post hasn't been a draft for months now, and I just wanted to share my thoughts.  Also please try to avoid whataboutism, this post is solely about Bernie. So try to avoid things like:  \\>but what about Trump  \\>but what about Biden  \\>but what about the lesser of all evils  These are irrelevant. Anyway, CMV","c_root_id_A":"fmviyc0","c_root_id_B":"fmv7lx8","created_at_utc_A":1586418653,"created_at_utc_B":1586408250,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Sanders was never treated as just another candidate, and it was never left unknown that he wasn't supposed to be allowed to win the nomination. This idea that he was a bad candidate is clearly false, when you consider that he's a complete outsider, who had everything thrown at him, the Dems pulled a lot of shady shit to try and deny him opportunities and he got to where he was. He was clearly a decent candidate. He was just never treated with any respect by the media or the party.   You weren't asked whether you wanted to vote for Bernie in 2016. You were sold Hillary Clinton, and told that also there's this other guy who's a bit of an extremist weirdo who has a bunch of rabid loser fans who stay home on the internet all day. 2020 was much the same.  The Sanders' supporters being aggressive meme is part of the campaign to discredit Sanders. The reality is that you're not looking at the hit pieces, all the people shitting on Sanders, all the people shitting on Sanders' as part of the campaign of being aggressively anti-Sanders, and yet, that's exactly what it is. And all politicians do have their supporters who are like that. They're still not as bad as Trump supporters, are they?  And was it any less cringy with Hillary? Didn't look like it.   I know you're going to call this irrelevant, but I think we're going to find out with Biden whether that judgement is true.  Because Biden was the guy that got picked for all the candidates to consolidate behind.   This wasn't about who was the best candidate, it was who everyone who was left hated the least. Who were they all competing against and painting as the enemy? Sanders. They all went and endorsed Biden. Who was pretty comfortably in the lead. What would have happened if they'd not dropped out when they did? Sanders would have swept home that week due to the fragmented vote, and probably have gone on to win even if they'd dropped out later because clearly he was crushing it and had a chance to win.   They did, though, and Biden gained a lot of support, because while nobody liked him, most people who would have backed other candidates were pushed towards him. And after that first performance after it was Sanders\/Biden, it was pretty set.   But I don't think that it seems like the way that people are talking about it, they're all backing Biden. Some people, sure. They were doing it from the start. Or there are some who would have chosen him second. But again, you weren't given the choice to vote for Bernie or Biden. You were told that Biden is the way that the Dems would win the election and Bernie was again presented as a bad choice.   I'm not hearing \"Biden\" is a genius, who has lots of people all energised, and people feel like he's selling like crazy. He seems to just have this resigned \"We can only have this guy or we'll\" kind of vibe about him because that's what people have been sold by the establishment. He personally doesn't seem like he's functional.  The same shit happened with Hillary but less so. And nobody thought that Hillary would lose. But she did.  So, this election feels like a referendum on how correct that decision made by the establishment was. If Biden wins, then clearly he was a good candidate, and perhaps the establishment was correct that the only way to win was that, and that's what matters. If he loses, though, then people have been sold on a formula that doesn't work.","human_ref_B":"The thread title is a tautology. Any losing candidate must not have been a good candidate (or else they wouldn't have lost.) Do you have an example in mind of a candidate who lost that was a \"good candidate?\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10403.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"rrpw8t","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Employers shouldn\u2019t be able to enforce overtime and cost an employee their job if they don\u2019t want to work it I work in the private construction industry and it can definitely be classified as a high stress job. I\u2019ve been at the same company for almost 4 years and I\u2019ve worked some extra time here and there but I\u2019ve never been one to stay hours late every night\/work weekends and holidays. I\u2019ll see some coworkers in other departments staying until 8oclock at night when they were supposed to leave at 4. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s healthy and it\u2019s not the lifestyle for me. Lately the job has been even crazier than usual and my employer let me know this is a trend that\u2019ll continue. Instead of hiring the appropriate amount of people, they believe in overworking everyone instead. I just don\u2019t want to buy into it and I don\u2019t think it\u2019s okay for my employer to tell me my hours are \u201cthis time to this time\u201d but in reality expect I\u2019ll work 15-20 extra hours every week all year round. I\u2019m not afraid to work hard because I do bust my ass and give 100% while I\u2019m there, I skip my lunches and I come in early almost every day, but now my employer is asking I stay late at night. I\u2019ve considered finding a new job but talking with friends\/family it seems like this is a trend everywhere. Am I a \u201cpoor employee\u201d because I don\u2019t want to devote my life to this job?","c_root_id_A":"hqidvtj","c_root_id_B":"hqiepdu","created_at_utc_A":1640841026,"created_at_utc_B":1640841472,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Pro tip: every time you say the phrase \u201cemployers should\u201d your conclusion must unequivocally be \u201ctherefore, unions.\u201d","human_ref_B":"I am the Plant Manager of manufacturing plant in the Steel Industry. Defined as Critical Infrastructure, we barely slowed for Covid and the supply chain restrictions just ramped up demand for our services far more.  If I could produce 3x the amount of product per month, it would all be sold instantly with more demand.  To address your CMV, \"Employer's shouldn't be able to enforce overtime and cost an employee their job...\"  The Company has a need. If that need is not meet, *something* will happen. In some cases, its simply a loss in revenue, in others (my case in particular), it would allow depletion of supply chain items that fuel the energy, medical, and military sectors. The ripple effects of that would be enormous.  It's my job to coax out maximum production by whatever means necessary.  As an employee, (assuming an At Will work state, non-union, non contract type of employment), your employment contract is simply this: *Abide by company rules and you will be paid X an hour.* In some cases, it can be more complex, and probably is, but at the core, that's what it boils down to.   You agreed to this when you chose to work there.  The employment agreement stays in effect as long as the Company believes you are meeting your side of it, and you believe they are meeting their side of it.  I can have an employee run production, take safety classes, clean the bathroom, sit on their butt, or cut snowflakes out of paper ( a little light hearted humour here), so long as the employee wishes to be employed and receive an hourly rate, the employment contract is not broken.  again, this is the basis of the employment contract.  *Abide by the Company rules and you will receive x per hour)*  &#x200B;  Now, I would like to address other items in your post.  As I said, my job is to maximize through-put.  There are ways to accomplish this.   Improved equipment, improved logistics, Improved methods.  These all take time, but are the superior path to more productivity.  Well, that and automation, that's what I am working on now.    Then there is the short term counteractions.  Throw more man-hours at it by either hiring more people, or requiring more work hours.   In general, there is a labor shortage (although personally that seems to be easing in my region). If I were to choose \"hiring more people\", I may have very limited success. Compound that with time to train (6 months in general for me), then that option becomes more of a long term solution than a short term.  That only leaves me Over-time as an effective solution for an immediate production crisis.  This is the Company's need, if an employee does not wish to meet the Company's need, then the Company does not need them.  Employment contract broken. (and vice versa)  1. Maybe your company wants to hire more people but can find any suitable candidates. 2. Maybe the other employee's working long hours **want** the long hours. It is the holiday season after all, and people tend to spend some money. 3. Lean staffing is a goal for some Company's. We do not layoff. Ever. It is a selling point, a point of pride, for us but the balance to that equations is that Overtime can platy a role to keep staffing low. 4. In general, the trend is everywhere, due to low staffing numbers and supply chain crunches.  &#x200B;  If you are still reading, I want to flip the script a little bit.  \"*I don\u2019t think it\u2019s healthy and it\u2019s not the lifestyle for me*\" -this is perfectly legitimate and don't let your employer make you feel like its not.  Our jobs are a means to provide for our well being and each of us require something different to be fulfilled.  \"*I skip my lunches\" -*Don't. In the moments of hectic days, it can feel like there is too much to do and not enough time to do it, but hunger (and lack of sleep), are bad for your health, and bad for your safety.  If your employer makes you skip lunches, that is a violation of the employment contract due to labor laws, and you should run fast from that place.  \"*Am I a \u201cpoor employee\u201d because I don\u2019t want to devote my life to this job?*\" - NO. Assuming everything you said at face value, it doesn't sound like you are a bad employee or they are a bad employer.  It is just a poor match.    &#x200B;  Employers can make bad decisions that are not malicious in nature.  I personally feel like mandatory overtime is always a bad decision. In the 4 years I have ran my plant, I only required it one time, which resulted in an extra 12 hours in one particular month.  I have always leaned on Voluntary Overtime, and maybe I have been blessed more than other employers, but I have always had sufficient success with allowing those who want more to have than to force those who don't to work it.   &#x200B;  I wish you the best and hope you find some peace with your current employer or luck in finding a better matched employer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":446.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"rrpw8t","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Employers shouldn\u2019t be able to enforce overtime and cost an employee their job if they don\u2019t want to work it I work in the private construction industry and it can definitely be classified as a high stress job. I\u2019ve been at the same company for almost 4 years and I\u2019ve worked some extra time here and there but I\u2019ve never been one to stay hours late every night\/work weekends and holidays. I\u2019ll see some coworkers in other departments staying until 8oclock at night when they were supposed to leave at 4. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s healthy and it\u2019s not the lifestyle for me. Lately the job has been even crazier than usual and my employer let me know this is a trend that\u2019ll continue. Instead of hiring the appropriate amount of people, they believe in overworking everyone instead. I just don\u2019t want to buy into it and I don\u2019t think it\u2019s okay for my employer to tell me my hours are \u201cthis time to this time\u201d but in reality expect I\u2019ll work 15-20 extra hours every week all year round. I\u2019m not afraid to work hard because I do bust my ass and give 100% while I\u2019m there, I skip my lunches and I come in early almost every day, but now my employer is asking I stay late at night. I\u2019ve considered finding a new job but talking with friends\/family it seems like this is a trend everywhere. Am I a \u201cpoor employee\u201d because I don\u2019t want to devote my life to this job?","c_root_id_A":"hqiepdu","c_root_id_B":"hqi2i8b","created_at_utc_A":1640841472,"created_at_utc_B":1640835419,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I am the Plant Manager of manufacturing plant in the Steel Industry. Defined as Critical Infrastructure, we barely slowed for Covid and the supply chain restrictions just ramped up demand for our services far more.  If I could produce 3x the amount of product per month, it would all be sold instantly with more demand.  To address your CMV, \"Employer's shouldn't be able to enforce overtime and cost an employee their job...\"  The Company has a need. If that need is not meet, *something* will happen. In some cases, its simply a loss in revenue, in others (my case in particular), it would allow depletion of supply chain items that fuel the energy, medical, and military sectors. The ripple effects of that would be enormous.  It's my job to coax out maximum production by whatever means necessary.  As an employee, (assuming an At Will work state, non-union, non contract type of employment), your employment contract is simply this: *Abide by company rules and you will be paid X an hour.* In some cases, it can be more complex, and probably is, but at the core, that's what it boils down to.   You agreed to this when you chose to work there.  The employment agreement stays in effect as long as the Company believes you are meeting your side of it, and you believe they are meeting their side of it.  I can have an employee run production, take safety classes, clean the bathroom, sit on their butt, or cut snowflakes out of paper ( a little light hearted humour here), so long as the employee wishes to be employed and receive an hourly rate, the employment contract is not broken.  again, this is the basis of the employment contract.  *Abide by the Company rules and you will receive x per hour)*  &#x200B;  Now, I would like to address other items in your post.  As I said, my job is to maximize through-put.  There are ways to accomplish this.   Improved equipment, improved logistics, Improved methods.  These all take time, but are the superior path to more productivity.  Well, that and automation, that's what I am working on now.    Then there is the short term counteractions.  Throw more man-hours at it by either hiring more people, or requiring more work hours.   In general, there is a labor shortage (although personally that seems to be easing in my region). If I were to choose \"hiring more people\", I may have very limited success. Compound that with time to train (6 months in general for me), then that option becomes more of a long term solution than a short term.  That only leaves me Over-time as an effective solution for an immediate production crisis.  This is the Company's need, if an employee does not wish to meet the Company's need, then the Company does not need them.  Employment contract broken. (and vice versa)  1. Maybe your company wants to hire more people but can find any suitable candidates. 2. Maybe the other employee's working long hours **want** the long hours. It is the holiday season after all, and people tend to spend some money. 3. Lean staffing is a goal for some Company's. We do not layoff. Ever. It is a selling point, a point of pride, for us but the balance to that equations is that Overtime can platy a role to keep staffing low. 4. In general, the trend is everywhere, due to low staffing numbers and supply chain crunches.  &#x200B;  If you are still reading, I want to flip the script a little bit.  \"*I don\u2019t think it\u2019s healthy and it\u2019s not the lifestyle for me*\" -this is perfectly legitimate and don't let your employer make you feel like its not.  Our jobs are a means to provide for our well being and each of us require something different to be fulfilled.  \"*I skip my lunches\" -*Don't. In the moments of hectic days, it can feel like there is too much to do and not enough time to do it, but hunger (and lack of sleep), are bad for your health, and bad for your safety.  If your employer makes you skip lunches, that is a violation of the employment contract due to labor laws, and you should run fast from that place.  \"*Am I a \u201cpoor employee\u201d because I don\u2019t want to devote my life to this job?*\" - NO. Assuming everything you said at face value, it doesn't sound like you are a bad employee or they are a bad employer.  It is just a poor match.    &#x200B;  Employers can make bad decisions that are not malicious in nature.  I personally feel like mandatory overtime is always a bad decision. In the 4 years I have ran my plant, I only required it one time, which resulted in an extra 12 hours in one particular month.  I have always leaned on Voluntary Overtime, and maybe I have been blessed more than other employers, but I have always had sufficient success with allowing those who want more to have than to force those who don't to work it.   &#x200B;  I wish you the best and hope you find some peace with your current employer or luck in finding a better matched employer.","human_ref_B":"Are you being compensated for your extra work hours?  If not, and you\u2019re expected to be, you should ask for more compensation.  It\u2019s hard to find good help and if you\u2019re a good worker they might pony up.  It\u2019s also a great time to find new work if that\u2019s the option you choose.  Some employers rely on your fear of unemployment to keep you working without fair compensation.  The ball should def be in your court these days  Also, have you talked about this with your direct supervisor or the owner?  There might be an explanation or something that helps make your choice easier","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6053.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"rrpw8t","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Employers shouldn\u2019t be able to enforce overtime and cost an employee their job if they don\u2019t want to work it I work in the private construction industry and it can definitely be classified as a high stress job. I\u2019ve been at the same company for almost 4 years and I\u2019ve worked some extra time here and there but I\u2019ve never been one to stay hours late every night\/work weekends and holidays. I\u2019ll see some coworkers in other departments staying until 8oclock at night when they were supposed to leave at 4. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s healthy and it\u2019s not the lifestyle for me. Lately the job has been even crazier than usual and my employer let me know this is a trend that\u2019ll continue. Instead of hiring the appropriate amount of people, they believe in overworking everyone instead. I just don\u2019t want to buy into it and I don\u2019t think it\u2019s okay for my employer to tell me my hours are \u201cthis time to this time\u201d but in reality expect I\u2019ll work 15-20 extra hours every week all year round. I\u2019m not afraid to work hard because I do bust my ass and give 100% while I\u2019m there, I skip my lunches and I come in early almost every day, but now my employer is asking I stay late at night. I\u2019ve considered finding a new job but talking with friends\/family it seems like this is a trend everywhere. Am I a \u201cpoor employee\u201d because I don\u2019t want to devote my life to this job?","c_root_id_A":"hqj8vkv","c_root_id_B":"hqivpb5","created_at_utc_A":1640862958,"created_at_utc_B":1640852639,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Its all about the preset agreement. I know ill be working overtime (and being paid handsomely for it) every christmas season. This comes with the job but also the flip side is im also free to take a ton of pto during the summer when its slow","human_ref_B":"Generally I agree, but for my job specifically, I think it's fair. I work on a production line and we have to come in an extra 7-8 hours if we're behind. I think it's fair because the schedules are completely reasonable for a 40 hour week, we have 3 shifts (day, swing, weekend), and it's pretty much always our fault if we get behind. I don't think it's unreasonable, especially since there's a massive housing shortage in my area and our product is absolutely necessary for any building (windows). For situations like mine, I think overtime needs to be mandatory sometimes, but it needs to be clear before the offer is accepted by the worker","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10319.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"2gnlpp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"Change my view thatSevere gender dysphoria (the desire to surgically change one's sex) should be treated as mental condition, not a physical one. Severe gender dysphoria (if there is an exact word for the condition of wanting to surgically modify the sex organs, please enlighten me) should be treated as a mental condition.  Gender dysphoria is an internal conflict. It is not a conflict with societal values, or social pressures, like the triggers that led some to consider homosexuality a mental disorder. People who want to surgically change their sex would have this conflict in any society.   I think that these individuals would be happier if we worked to develop coping mechanisms and medication (like we do for other mental conditions) instead of treating them surgically.   Surgical solutions are imperfect, and an observant person can almost always tell the difference between a transexual and a person who was born with that sex. This hinders their romantic and social prospects, and often leads to that person being ostracized from normal society. Even as technology develops, transsexual people will necessarily require lifelong, expensive treatments with many side effects to keep \"passing\" as their new sex. I'm not sure how the actual sexual organs work for people who have undergone this, but I'm almost certain that they wouldn't work as well as the sexual organs that they were born with.   I see treating people with severe gender dysphoria with surgery as avoiding the mental condition (I don't mean this as a value judgement, only to say that their physical body is not at fault). People with other body dysphorias are generally persuaded to seek mental treatment instead of getting the surgeries they think they need. I don't see why it should be different for gender dysphoria. I have an anxiety condition(and I'm on the autism spectrum), and with mental treatment, I can function pretty well in society. No one would recommend that I do what I physically desire and never go outside or interact with other people.   If mental treatments are even moderately successful, they would result in a person who is at least somewhat comfortable in their body. I see this outcome as preferable to lifelong physical treatments to a body that barely resembles the preferred sex of the transgendered person. I'm not certain that the mental condition can be \"cured\" completely, but that isn't the criteria we use in the treatment of other mental disorders.      _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ckku2ha","c_root_id_B":"ckkuaa7","created_at_utc_A":1410963599,"created_at_utc_B":1410964057,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"It is treated as something that occurs in the mind. The only reason it is different than other mental conditions is that we treat it not by changing the anatomy of the brain, but the anatomy of the body. If your CMV means that we should attempt to treat it only with drugs that affect the brain, my response is why?  >it would make them happier.  Not true. Both solutions solve the same problem - I mismatch between brain and body.  >it is imperfect  Couple things: it is way more perfect than any brain drug or therapy is, and it's really not all that imperfect. Look at Laverne Cox for an example - she's pretty damn perfect.  >it causes society to ostracize you  Two things: it doesn't have to (again, back to Cox), and if it does, that is the problem of the transphobic cis community, not the treatment for gender dysphoria.","human_ref_B":"> Severe gender dysphoria (if there is an exact word for the condition of wanting to surgically modify the sex organs, please enlighten me) should be treated as a mental condition.  Modern psychiatry, psychology, and medicine do not draw a clear bright line between \"mental\" and \"physical\" conditions.    Depression is the obvious example.  Some patients with depression require only therapy (i.e. \"mental treatment\") while others require drug treatment or even surgical intervention to resolve what is ultimately a physiological imbalance.   > If mental treatments are even moderately successful, they would result in a person who is at least somewhat comfortable in their body. I see this outcome as preferable to lifelong physical treatments to a body that barely resembles the preferred sex of the transgendered person.  The history of psychiatry (like medicine in general) is full of treatments that were the best we had at the time.  For instance, MAOIs are pretty nasty drugs compared to newer options, with a lot of side effects and potential complications from use.  But at the time they were first discovered, they were the best thing we had to treat depression.    Right now, we don't have any truly \"successful\" treatment for gender dysphoria.  Regardless of whether a patient undergoes medical transition or not, it's likely that they will be facing a lifetime of treatment in one form or the other.    What we have are a range of options that may provide some alleviation of symptoms.  It is up to researchers and medical professionals to investigate the risks and benefits of these options, and it is then up to patients to decide (with the help of their doctor(s)) which options are best for their individual case.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":458.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"ikjmce1","c_root_id_B":"ikk2shm","created_at_utc_A":1660670556,"created_at_utc_B":1660676770,"score_A":18,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"Is your issue with evangelizing in general, or specifically mission-based evangelizing?  Still, such mission trips, even if they're somewhat self-serving, provide value. Building a church in an area that lacks it provides a centralized, mission-based organization on the ground in areas that may lack it, and a line of connection and communication to an area that didn't exist before.  Anecdote isn't data, but a local church here built a sister church in South America approximately 15 years ago.  Since then, they hold fundraisers, clothing drives, education drives, etc. for that church and that church then distributes to those in need down there.  People here wouldn't have thought to extend their hand southward were it not for that mission work, and the people in South America would similarly not have a connection in the United States without that mission work.  We've come a long way since coloniization-style missionary work, and there are plenty of overly enthusiastic evangelical types. I'm not a believer, but I think those who engage in missionary work today are putting a lot more good in the world than bad, on a whole.","human_ref_B":">I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion.  If I recommend a movie to a friend, am I insulting them and suggesting they're incapable of choosing movies by themselves?  If I am talking without someone about a medical problem, and suggest something that has helped me, am I suggesting they can't find out things on their own?  I suspect people who are half-hearted about their faith rarely go on these trips.  I've seen religion have negative impacts in some situations, but I've also seen it have profoundly positive impacts on certain people.  Why wouldn't such a person want to share what they've found?  Also, I'm a bit confused about your logic that these trips are harmful.  Your argument seems to be that it's because these groups could do more by donating money to locals instead of spending it on the trips.  Even if that's true, that suggests that there is a more effective way to be altruistic, but not that the trips cause harm.  If Organization A does a lot of good and Organization B does a little, then donating to Organization B is still a good thing.  Not as good as A, perhaps, but still good.  Isn't it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6214.0,"score_ratio":2.3888888889}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"ikk2shm","c_root_id_B":"ikjmrqh","created_at_utc_A":1660676770,"created_at_utc_B":1660670717,"score_A":43,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":">I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion.  If I recommend a movie to a friend, am I insulting them and suggesting they're incapable of choosing movies by themselves?  If I am talking without someone about a medical problem, and suggest something that has helped me, am I suggesting they can't find out things on their own?  I suspect people who are half-hearted about their faith rarely go on these trips.  I've seen religion have negative impacts in some situations, but I've also seen it have profoundly positive impacts on certain people.  Why wouldn't such a person want to share what they've found?  Also, I'm a bit confused about your logic that these trips are harmful.  Your argument seems to be that it's because these groups could do more by donating money to locals instead of spending it on the trips.  Even if that's true, that suggests that there is a more effective way to be altruistic, but not that the trips cause harm.  If Organization A does a lot of good and Organization B does a little, then donating to Organization B is still a good thing.  Not as good as A, perhaps, but still good.  Isn't it?","human_ref_B":"It might be a little insulting, but I'd argue that a lot of people who go on mission trips are doing so for altruistic reasons.  They believe that they have found eternal salvation in an all-knowing all-powerful being that controls the universe.  That's pretty big if true.  Especially when the all-powerful being has specifically told you that your path to eternal salvation is to forward the message onto other people.  Are people experiencing extreme poverty easier to convert to religion?  You betcha!  It's good marketing.  >It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks  Most of the construction\/physical labor boils down to digging a sewer line or trench, or putting up basic structures under the supervision of contractors.  How much training do you think you need to dig a hole?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6053.0,"score_ratio":2.8666666667}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"ikjsas9","c_root_id_B":"ikk2shm","created_at_utc_A":1660672797,"created_at_utc_B":1660676770,"score_A":6,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019ve had some weird ass interactions with white, western missionaries in developing countries.  While on a bike tour thru the NM Navajo nation we stayed w some rando missionaries during a tornado watch.  They literally used the term savages to describe the local kids.  Similar to being approached by some missionaries in the Coban, Guatemala area because I was a fellow westerner and they were homesick.  That family helped get a well dug and the church grounds had a huge garden.  Anyway, back then I was full of piss and vinegar and debated with them into the night.  Years later I was looking at pics of the other villages in the highlands, people looked sickly and horrible.  I did a google search and found that there had been famine due to a corn crop failure.  I remembered the villagers living around the church seemed to be \u201chappy\u201d and healthy.  Take that anecdote how you will but it\u2019s one thing to be colonized by western religion, it\u2019s another thing to be dead from starvation.  If that was me, I\u2019d play along with jesus in exchange for feeding my kids.  I\u2019d also rather attribute human agency to living, healthy people than corpses.","human_ref_B":">I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion.  If I recommend a movie to a friend, am I insulting them and suggesting they're incapable of choosing movies by themselves?  If I am talking without someone about a medical problem, and suggest something that has helped me, am I suggesting they can't find out things on their own?  I suspect people who are half-hearted about their faith rarely go on these trips.  I've seen religion have negative impacts in some situations, but I've also seen it have profoundly positive impacts on certain people.  Why wouldn't such a person want to share what they've found?  Also, I'm a bit confused about your logic that these trips are harmful.  Your argument seems to be that it's because these groups could do more by donating money to locals instead of spending it on the trips.  Even if that's true, that suggests that there is a more effective way to be altruistic, but not that the trips cause harm.  If Organization A does a lot of good and Organization B does a little, then donating to Organization B is still a good thing.  Not as good as A, perhaps, but still good.  Isn't it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3973.0,"score_ratio":7.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"ikk2shm","c_root_id_B":"ikk0fpq","created_at_utc_A":1660676770,"created_at_utc_B":1660675890,"score_A":43,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion.  If I recommend a movie to a friend, am I insulting them and suggesting they're incapable of choosing movies by themselves?  If I am talking without someone about a medical problem, and suggest something that has helped me, am I suggesting they can't find out things on their own?  I suspect people who are half-hearted about their faith rarely go on these trips.  I've seen religion have negative impacts in some situations, but I've also seen it have profoundly positive impacts on certain people.  Why wouldn't such a person want to share what they've found?  Also, I'm a bit confused about your logic that these trips are harmful.  Your argument seems to be that it's because these groups could do more by donating money to locals instead of spending it on the trips.  Even if that's true, that suggests that there is a more effective way to be altruistic, but not that the trips cause harm.  If Organization A does a lot of good and Organization B does a little, then donating to Organization B is still a good thing.  Not as good as A, perhaps, but still good.  Isn't it?","human_ref_B":"Are religious\/cultural interactions inherently more harmful than the alternative?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":880.0,"score_ratio":21.5}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"ikjsas9","c_root_id_B":"ikk42fg","created_at_utc_A":1660672797,"created_at_utc_B":1660677257,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019ve had some weird ass interactions with white, western missionaries in developing countries.  While on a bike tour thru the NM Navajo nation we stayed w some rando missionaries during a tornado watch.  They literally used the term savages to describe the local kids.  Similar to being approached by some missionaries in the Coban, Guatemala area because I was a fellow westerner and they were homesick.  That family helped get a well dug and the church grounds had a huge garden.  Anyway, back then I was full of piss and vinegar and debated with them into the night.  Years later I was looking at pics of the other villages in the highlands, people looked sickly and horrible.  I did a google search and found that there had been famine due to a corn crop failure.  I remembered the villagers living around the church seemed to be \u201chappy\u201d and healthy.  Take that anecdote how you will but it\u2019s one thing to be colonized by western religion, it\u2019s another thing to be dead from starvation.  If that was me, I\u2019d play along with jesus in exchange for feeding my kids.  I\u2019d also rather attribute human agency to living, healthy people than corpses.","human_ref_B":">I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feeI...it seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate.   All of this is just your obvious mistrust and distaste for organized religion so not much reason to argue you on it.   >Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  A church is more then just a place for religious worship. It can also work as the center of community. More often then not these churches that get built end up being town Halls every other day of the week. It becomes the center of local government and organization. Something absolutely needed for improvised communitys.  >While the source says that you sometimes need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do not need training or degrees in.  Most of these things they are doing on these mission trips are incredibly simple things, like digging ditches, building wells, making roads. The most complex thing they do is build a simple church and that's under the eye of trained people to make sure it is done right. Believe it or not very little training is needed to be a construction worker. As for education this is things like teaching children and adults how to read, write, and other very simple things. The medical stuff is inline with taking care of sick people, bedside manner kind of stuff.   >Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children.  Again the things they are doing and teaching is well within the wheelhouse of a 25 year old.   >Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work?  No it wouldn't. First it's very unlikely they even have a local contractor. It's also unlikely there is anyone there that would desire to become a teacher and even if they did they are most likely to be too busy to provide for their families to even think of doing anything that benefits the community first before themselves. That's the reality of poverty.   >They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.  This is simply not true and ties into what I said about the reality of poverty. Sure anyone and everyone could figure out that a town hall would be useful but who is going to want to build one when you have to worry about food the next day? Who wants to teach the children how to read and write when you need to go get water every hour to provide it to your family. These missions weather you believe in the message or not are going out of their way to do things these people need they cannot do for themselves. True they could instead build houses and such for these people but how do you decide who get the house? How do you know that as soon as you turn around a stronger family just doesn't take that house.   In the end you can not deny that these people are helping. Disagree with the message of the faith all you want but for them that faith is what makes them want to get off their ass, travel hundreds of thousands of miles away from home and simply try and make someone else's life better.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4460.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"ikk0fpq","c_root_id_B":"ikk42fg","created_at_utc_A":1660675890,"created_at_utc_B":1660677257,"score_A":2,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Are religious\/cultural interactions inherently more harmful than the alternative?","human_ref_B":">I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feeI...it seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate.   All of this is just your obvious mistrust and distaste for organized religion so not much reason to argue you on it.   >Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  A church is more then just a place for religious worship. It can also work as the center of community. More often then not these churches that get built end up being town Halls every other day of the week. It becomes the center of local government and organization. Something absolutely needed for improvised communitys.  >While the source says that you sometimes need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do not need training or degrees in.  Most of these things they are doing on these mission trips are incredibly simple things, like digging ditches, building wells, making roads. The most complex thing they do is build a simple church and that's under the eye of trained people to make sure it is done right. Believe it or not very little training is needed to be a construction worker. As for education this is things like teaching children and adults how to read, write, and other very simple things. The medical stuff is inline with taking care of sick people, bedside manner kind of stuff.   >Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children.  Again the things they are doing and teaching is well within the wheelhouse of a 25 year old.   >Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work?  No it wouldn't. First it's very unlikely they even have a local contractor. It's also unlikely there is anyone there that would desire to become a teacher and even if they did they are most likely to be too busy to provide for their families to even think of doing anything that benefits the community first before themselves. That's the reality of poverty.   >They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.  This is simply not true and ties into what I said about the reality of poverty. Sure anyone and everyone could figure out that a town hall would be useful but who is going to want to build one when you have to worry about food the next day? Who wants to teach the children how to read and write when you need to go get water every hour to provide it to your family. These missions weather you believe in the message or not are going out of their way to do things these people need they cannot do for themselves. True they could instead build houses and such for these people but how do you decide who get the house? How do you know that as soon as you turn around a stronger family just doesn't take that house.   In the end you can not deny that these people are helping. Disagree with the message of the faith all you want but for them that faith is what makes them want to get off their ass, travel hundreds of thousands of miles away from home and simply try and make someone else's life better.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1367.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"ikk8uy5","c_root_id_B":"ikk0fpq","created_at_utc_A":1660679093,"created_at_utc_B":1660675890,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Ive been on a few of those work trips, specifically for repairing\/rebuilding houses damaged by natural disasters in and out of the US. In my personal experience, my teams have always been supervised by a professional, and included a mix of amateurs and pros. A large part of each project has required muscle and lots of hands, which is great for those without much construction knowledge to still be able to help others.   Also, at least in my trips, donating money for locals to fix things wasn't a good option according to the permanent aid workers in the area. Disasters bring out the worst in some people and there were a lot of scams where people gave their life savings for repairs and the construction guys were never heard from after getting the money.   The last place I was had so few honest local workers that the government was paying to fly volunteers out to do work. There were people on a wait list for 2+ years while living in one room of a destroyed house with a small tarp for a roof. A number of elderly residents had actually died before their house was ever made livable again.  The main thing I do when looking at these trips is making sure that it's with an established, reputable organization because there are churches whose good intentions don't match their abilities and I don't want to cause more problems for the communities I'm trying to help. I realize disaster relief is a little different, but my trips have all been through religious organizations and sometimes do involve a bit of the church side in addition to the repair stuff.","human_ref_B":"Are religious\/cultural interactions inherently more harmful than the alternative?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3203.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"ikk0fpq","c_root_id_B":"ikke18j","created_at_utc_A":1660675890,"created_at_utc_B":1660681111,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Are religious\/cultural interactions inherently more harmful than the alternative?","human_ref_B":">It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion  In regards to Christianity...  No, very often the missionary trips are to places that are already involved in Christianity. The place they go are typically already evangelizing amongst their own people. We don't just trample through the jungle looking for heathens.   >It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I  Again, no. There's plenty of people under 25 that have been working in construction for 6-7 years. Also, you don't need to be a skilled tradesman to be able to dig a hole or carry lumber around for someone that is skilled.   >I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money.   We're not taking jobs from people, we're going to already established places and helping them build. That would be like saying your neighbor is taking away work from someone because they helped you build a shed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5221.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"ikke18j","c_root_id_B":"ikkbkgk","created_at_utc_A":1660681111,"created_at_utc_B":1660680142,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion  In regards to Christianity...  No, very often the missionary trips are to places that are already involved in Christianity. The place they go are typically already evangelizing amongst their own people. We don't just trample through the jungle looking for heathens.   >It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I  Again, no. There's plenty of people under 25 that have been working in construction for 6-7 years. Also, you don't need to be a skilled tradesman to be able to dig a hole or carry lumber around for someone that is skilled.   >I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money.   We're not taking jobs from people, we're going to already established places and helping them build. That would be like saying your neighbor is taking away work from someone because they helped you build a shed.","human_ref_B":"The economics of your second point are off. The locals are not doing nothing. They are trying to support themselves in some way. With the missionaries they get the value of the missionaries work and the value of what the locals are doing.   An example, if your home is damaged would you rather have someone send you the materials to make the repair yourself or to bring the materials and do it for you. If you do it then you have to take time off work to learn how to make the repair and then complete it. If they come and do it you have the repair and the pay from your job.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":969.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"ikk0fpq","c_root_id_B":"iklly95","created_at_utc_A":1660675890,"created_at_utc_B":1660699814,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Are religious\/cultural interactions inherently more harmful than the alternative?","human_ref_B":"Ultimately they build infrastructure that would not exist otherwise including wells\/land development etc.  Could the same infrastructure be built without a religious angle? Absolutely! Would it be? Almost surely not. Building a church and presenting it as an option is really not that big a deal IMO.   I also feel like you're adding in a racial\/cultural element that is rarely a factor. Most of these groups evangelize pretty much everywhere and believe most other people have it wrong. These churches would also feel the same they do about you as third world citizens, you just don't need a well or infrastructure so they aren't even on your radar.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23924.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"ikkbkgk","c_root_id_B":"iklly95","created_at_utc_A":1660680142,"created_at_utc_B":1660699814,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The economics of your second point are off. The locals are not doing nothing. They are trying to support themselves in some way. With the missionaries they get the value of the missionaries work and the value of what the locals are doing.   An example, if your home is damaged would you rather have someone send you the materials to make the repair yourself or to bring the materials and do it for you. If you do it then you have to take time off work to learn how to make the repair and then complete it. If they come and do it you have the repair and the pay from your job.","human_ref_B":"Ultimately they build infrastructure that would not exist otherwise including wells\/land development etc.  Could the same infrastructure be built without a religious angle? Absolutely! Would it be? Almost surely not. Building a church and presenting it as an option is really not that big a deal IMO.   I also feel like you're adding in a racial\/cultural element that is rarely a factor. Most of these groups evangelize pretty much everywhere and believe most other people have it wrong. These churches would also feel the same they do about you as third world citizens, you just don't need a well or infrastructure so they aren't even on your radar.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19672.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"wpzu8u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Religious mission trips do more harm than good From what I've read online about them, the two main purposes of mission trips seem to be 1) to spread their religion and 2) to do physical service work.  I find the first purpose to be really insulting to the people of the countries missionaries travel to. It sends a message that these people cannot possibly choose the best religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for themselves and need the \"help\" of missionaries to follow the \"right\" religion. These trips almost always take place in impoverished areas of the world and to me it feels like the \"saying the quiet part out loud\" in this situation would be to say that the people who go on these trips believe that poor people are stupid and easy to prey on. The source I read (linked in the first paragraph) specifically says \"many of the countries most in need of the gospel are also full of poverty, and places filled with poverty are also filled with vulnerable people\". It seems that they mean that these people are easier to convert because they are often in crisis situations and are desperate. Some go so far as to go on these trips to build a church rather than something that the community needs.  I believe that the second reason people go on these trips, physical service work, is also problematic. While the source says that you *sometimes* need medical training or degrees to do medical mission trips, it also talks about trips focusing on construction and education which you do *not* need training or degrees in. Most of the people who go on these trips are under 25 years old. It is very unlikely at these ages that they have the skills necessary to perform these tasks which means that they are potentially building unsafe structures and improperly teaching children. I also believe this is bad because it takes work away from the locals and costs more money. Rather than paying to fly yourself out there, paying for housing and meals, and using a community's resources, why not just donate money so that local people can do the work? Would it not make more sense to pay for the supplies so that a local contractor can build a school or pay for a local person's education so that they can become a teacher rather than untrained college aged people doing this work? Without paying for your own expenses, you'd have more money to give as well.  To me, it seems like these trips serve the people who go on them more than the people they say they want to help. They provide experiences for the travelers, but little to no help for people in poverty and\/or crisis situations.","c_root_id_A":"iklly95","c_root_id_B":"ikkwnmk","created_at_utc_A":1660699814,"created_at_utc_B":1660688693,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Ultimately they build infrastructure that would not exist otherwise including wells\/land development etc.  Could the same infrastructure be built without a religious angle? Absolutely! Would it be? Almost surely not. Building a church and presenting it as an option is really not that big a deal IMO.   I also feel like you're adding in a racial\/cultural element that is rarely a factor. Most of these groups evangelize pretty much everywhere and believe most other people have it wrong. These churches would also feel the same they do about you as third world citizens, you just don't need a well or infrastructure so they aren't even on your radar.","human_ref_B":"I can only speak from my experience. This was twenty years ago when I was a hardcore born again Christian. I was in church and lived and breathed church. I mean we were in church 5 days a week doing some type of activity. So when mission trips came up we (my husband and I) volunteered for them whether it was youth based or adult based.   I want to be honest and say most of the youth trips were in our country and were in impoverished areas. The youth raised the money to go on the mission trips by holding fund raisers in the church like dinners, and bake sales and the sort. During the mission trips, It was basically vacation bible schools and food banks all week. Also there was some type of Manuel labor, usually helping a church out by painting it or building additional Sunday school classrooms. We would stay on a gym floors and sleep on air mattresses the whole week and slum it out. The best part was having a fun day one day during the trip, usually going to a theme park at the end of the trip.   As for the adult mission trips, they were almost always out of country and we always had to raise the funds ourselves to go. We never had issues personally about this because we were making the world a better place for God, because that is what is ingrained in you when you become \u201csaved\u201d . It is up to you to make sure that you aren\u2019t the reason someone goes to hell because you didn\u2019t tell them about God while you had the chance to. Anyways, after we saved our money we usually went to a place like Matamoros, Mexico, or the Ukraine where people are really impoverished and you feel like you are making a difference. We would go and spend a week or two doing laborious jobs and saying it\u2019s all \u201cGod doing it\u201d etc. You know very homogenized and sterile. Meanwhile, there are things that happen behind the scenes that we never mentioned. Things that disturbed me greatly!   1. One mission trip in Atlanta, Ga. We went during a cold spell and there were kids outside barefoot and without jackets on. We were trying to teach them songs and bible stories but how could they learn when they are shivering? I am one person who will tell it like it is so I told the kids it\u2019s cold, go get your shoes and jackets on. Well this one family, the kids were blatantly honest and the kids came back with busted shoes and either no jackets or no jackets at all. They told me thats all they had, so I let two of them gather together and use my jacket. After that evening I discussed it with my pastor and asked if I could buy those keho were without jackets and shoes and was told I couldn\u2019t because it wouldn\u2019t be fair to the other kids and if I didn\u2019t have enough for one I would be starting a total wave of \u201cwhy not me?\u201d  2. In Matamoros, Mexico we were at a beach location we were hosting a VBS where the people had literally nothing!  There was a 10 year old child that came with her 3 year old brother in her arms. As we were teaching them songs and such the little boy had a severe grand mal seizure. It upset everyone in the place. The little girl simply rubbed his head and whispered softly in his ear till it passed. He was completely unconscious and limp afterwards. One of our leaders walked the little girl home with her brother. I was highly upset and begged them to let us take him in and let him be seen by a Dr. They told me no because he isn\u2019t our responsibility and it would be a liability if he drove them to the Dr. Also, there would be nothing we could do because his seizures looked like it\u2019s chronic and not acute therefore his parents know what\u2019s best for him. This was my first ever mission trip as an adult. We were with multiple churches so this was several churches decision. I didn\u2019t understand completely everything because I was naive but I figured I would toughen up. I didn\u2019t.   2. Second mission trip was in Ukraine. We (the church) on our first night presented the church we were being hosted at a used but still functional ultrasound machine for the heart. It was going to save a lot of lives the pastor exclaimed and was super exited so that very night he wanted to bring it in to the local hospital. So my dad, my pastor, and the Ukrainian pastor went to the hospital to drop it off. Immediately, the staff was so excited they brought my dad and my pastor in the back to the operating room where they were performing open heart surgery on a little boy no older than 6-9 years old. My dad said he was afraid to even breathe because he they stepped of an international flight with people coughing just hours earlier.   Not only that but 2 days later, our pastors wife sprained her ankle and went back to the same hospital and while the interpreter was telling the desk what was going on, a man in the waiting room was having a heart attack. They took the pastors wife before that man. I don\u2019t know why they did that. I\u2019m not blaming my church for this treatment but still\u2026 that man didn\u2019t make it. But it infuriates me to think they might\u2019ve thought they had to treat us better because they were afraid we might not help them anymore if we weren\u2019t treated first.    I\u2019m saying all of this because when I think of those mission trips, I think of the pros and cons. I think they about equal out. We are there to entertain and labor for about a week or two. But at the same time we are Americans and are soft people. We will never truly work as hard or as fast as the people in those countries work. So by the time we go there, host whatever workshops we host like VBS, or Marriage Seminars, etc, and the labor, and say we even feed them a few times. Ok. We gave them several thousand dollars of our materials. But, they still have to host us. They will whether or not we want them to, they will try to find the nicest places to host us at. In Matamoros, it was the best church( it had electricity). Same in the Ukraine so they are costs for them. Then they will want to thank us on some small way. Usually is in a form of their cuisine. So it means getting their best ingredients and cooking their best food. This isn\u2019t cheap for them. Let\u2019s not even talk about the psychological stuff. I think you guys hit on it already. The psychological stuff is why I left the church a long time ago.   So yes! Mission trips are horrible! Honest to God truth the kids that go on these trips hate it. They are only going because their parents make them go. And young adults that go,(like I once did) go because they want to \u201cserve God\u201d and love experiencing new things.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11121.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"6x6fn5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: arguments against universal healthcare also apply to helping people in Houston I believe if you don't support universal healthcare, you should be against the government helping flooded people in Houston. Along with my experience of people debating against universal healthcare, I'm also taking this list as a help: https:\/\/balancedpolitics.org\/universal_health_care.htm  Let's play the devil's advocate here:  * If the government agencies are never efficient, we should let the free market save the flooded and bill the people rescued.  * Cost control of rescue missions will be better if the driving forces of the rescue operations are competition, innovation and profit motives.  * Patients should have a way to choose which treatment they can get according to what they can afford, and it should be the same for people in floods and rescue missions.  * Costs are increased when patients don't curb their doctor visits, and likewise they might not show restraint when asking for help from the rescue missions if they know they won't be billed for it afterwards.  * People who take care of themselves by doing sport, eating well and not living in areas liable to flooding should not have to pay the burden for the others.  * Government is likely to pass regulations against smoking, eating and not evacuating places with a tempest forecast, which will lead to a loss of personal freedoms.  **Clarification**: this looks like a \"double-standard\" question (https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/changemyview\/wiki\/rules#wiki_double_standards), which are usually disallowed, so let me clarified my stance. I think arguments against universal healthcare don't make any sense and this is perfectly illustrated by natural disasters, as they can also apply but sound completely absurd. I'll consider my view changed if you are able to convince me that this analogy doesn't hold because there are deep and important reasons why saving people in Houston for free is more justified than having universal healthcare, from an anti-universal healthcare perspective. (I'll also consider my view changed if you are somehow able to convince me that we should let the free market save people in Houston.)  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dmdkiul","c_root_id_B":"dmdh0pn","created_at_utc_A":1504188485,"created_at_utc_B":1504184238,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You're equating the wrong things. You're comparing short-term disaster relief to health care on every level.   It'd be one thing if you said, \"Free emergency department visits for real emergencies and medical bills over a certain threshold\", but you didn't.   Universal Health Care typically includes preventative care like physicals, planned medical expenses like childbirth, and other care for nonlethal ailments.   Disaster recovery compares much more to ER visits or serious illness treatments over a certain threshold.  Basically, UHC is a totally different animal than disaster relief.   Why should we save people in Houston for 'free'? Well, I'd point to the scale. If the government doesn't step in, America's fourth largest city will be economically broken for years. There is so much water and damage in the area that if we leave it alone, the American economy would break. If we don't get the people out before we start the cleanup and repairs, it will not only result in large numbers of human loss, but it will make cleanup and repair much more difficult and costly, as the area would likely become dangerous both biologically and criminally.  With the massive scale of Houston being the fourth largest city in America, even ignoring the damage to structures and buildings if we allow most of the people to die due to there being no disaster relief organization at the scale of the government. With those people dying, there will be a massive economic impact on the city of Houston, which will, in turn, have a widespread effect on the rest of the United States.  With Universal Health Care, the number of people who are affected is large, but how many actually die from not being able to afford treatment? According to this place it was at-most 45k in the early 2000s. Even if that number were to have doubled to 90k, it's still a very small number. On the other hand, if even if 10% of Houston's population needs saving, it dwarfs that 45k number.","human_ref_B":"Response to market forces include a delay, sometimes a fairly substantial one. This causes spiky phenomena with large gaps between occurrences to be uniquely unsuited to remediation through market forces.  The government response is still not in any way efficient. Consider the difference between natural disaster response in cities, usually handled by governments, and the natural disaster response in rural areas, usually handled by those least affected within the impacted communities. The cities generally take far longer to recover.  I'm not actually suggesting that the city recoveries be left to charity. Resources generally need to be more carefully managed in a city environment, which requires a greater degree of centralization and organization. However, if the governmental efforts were reasonably efficient, they would still be able to keep pace with recoveries in rural areas.  In the case of a natural disaster hitting a city, government efforts generally end up being the least worst option, but still not a good option. Where a good option is available, such as with charitable aid in a rural area or market forces in a relatively consistent market, that option should be taken.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4247.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"6x6fn5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: arguments against universal healthcare also apply to helping people in Houston I believe if you don't support universal healthcare, you should be against the government helping flooded people in Houston. Along with my experience of people debating against universal healthcare, I'm also taking this list as a help: https:\/\/balancedpolitics.org\/universal_health_care.htm  Let's play the devil's advocate here:  * If the government agencies are never efficient, we should let the free market save the flooded and bill the people rescued.  * Cost control of rescue missions will be better if the driving forces of the rescue operations are competition, innovation and profit motives.  * Patients should have a way to choose which treatment they can get according to what they can afford, and it should be the same for people in floods and rescue missions.  * Costs are increased when patients don't curb their doctor visits, and likewise they might not show restraint when asking for help from the rescue missions if they know they won't be billed for it afterwards.  * People who take care of themselves by doing sport, eating well and not living in areas liable to flooding should not have to pay the burden for the others.  * Government is likely to pass regulations against smoking, eating and not evacuating places with a tempest forecast, which will lead to a loss of personal freedoms.  **Clarification**: this looks like a \"double-standard\" question (https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/changemyview\/wiki\/rules#wiki_double_standards), which are usually disallowed, so let me clarified my stance. I think arguments against universal healthcare don't make any sense and this is perfectly illustrated by natural disasters, as they can also apply but sound completely absurd. I'll consider my view changed if you are able to convince me that this analogy doesn't hold because there are deep and important reasons why saving people in Houston for free is more justified than having universal healthcare, from an anti-universal healthcare perspective. (I'll also consider my view changed if you are somehow able to convince me that we should let the free market save people in Houston.)  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dmdkiul","c_root_id_B":"dmdi8ow","created_at_utc_A":1504188485,"created_at_utc_B":1504185835,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You're equating the wrong things. You're comparing short-term disaster relief to health care on every level.   It'd be one thing if you said, \"Free emergency department visits for real emergencies and medical bills over a certain threshold\", but you didn't.   Universal Health Care typically includes preventative care like physicals, planned medical expenses like childbirth, and other care for nonlethal ailments.   Disaster recovery compares much more to ER visits or serious illness treatments over a certain threshold.  Basically, UHC is a totally different animal than disaster relief.   Why should we save people in Houston for 'free'? Well, I'd point to the scale. If the government doesn't step in, America's fourth largest city will be economically broken for years. There is so much water and damage in the area that if we leave it alone, the American economy would break. If we don't get the people out before we start the cleanup and repairs, it will not only result in large numbers of human loss, but it will make cleanup and repair much more difficult and costly, as the area would likely become dangerous both biologically and criminally.  With the massive scale of Houston being the fourth largest city in America, even ignoring the damage to structures and buildings if we allow most of the people to die due to there being no disaster relief organization at the scale of the government. With those people dying, there will be a massive economic impact on the city of Houston, which will, in turn, have a widespread effect on the rest of the United States.  With Universal Health Care, the number of people who are affected is large, but how many actually die from not being able to afford treatment? According to this place it was at-most 45k in the early 2000s. Even if that number were to have doubled to 90k, it's still a very small number. On the other hand, if even if 10% of Houston's population needs saving, it dwarfs that 45k number.","human_ref_B":"Hospitals are required to preform emergency first aid to people who are having a life threatening emergency regardless of their ability to pay. That's much the same as the government rescuing people free of charge. They are in an emergency situation where their life is in immediate threat. So the government rescues them and then they end up paying for anything beyond that, just as the person who went to the er is released after being stabilized and is required to pay for anything extra.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2650.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"n5iw3a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: NaN has no place in modern high-level languages In computing, NaN, or Not a Number, represents a value that is undefined or unrepresentable, especially in floating-point arithmetic. As I undestand, it's mostly used as a low-level optimization, so that you don't have to check for bad values while doing consecutive calculations. I think modern high-level languages should not use NaN. My reasoning is:  * You still have to check for NaN at the end. This doesn't save you any typing * It leads to inconsistencies that you have to keep in mind. E.g. `nan in [nan]` is true while `nan == nan` is false. Can you off the top of your head say what should be the result of the following:   * `1 \/ 0` and `nan \/ 0`   * `sqrt(-1)` and `sqrt(nan)`? * NaN can lead to rare crashes. As `1 < nan` and `1 > nan` are both false, using it for sorting can lead to some very hard to debug exceptions. Not only these won't signal the presence of NaN, but depending on your data can happen so rarely you would have troubles reproducing the issue.  Instead, an exception should be raised when an operation is invalid. CMV","c_root_id_A":"gx1g1m1","c_root_id_B":"gx1ii6m","created_at_utc_A":1620230373,"created_at_utc_B":1620231382,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">NaN can lead to rare crashes. As 1 < nan and 1 > nan are both false, using it for sorting can lead to some very hard to debug exceptions. Not only these won't signal the presence of NaN, but depending on your data can happen so rarely you would have troubles reproducing the issue.  So what should be the answer of whether an object that can't be represented by as a number is compared to a number?  How do you get rid of Nan here?","human_ref_B":"Nan is part of an IEE floating point standard that has been set since 1985, and was most recently updated in 2008. Arbitrarily Changing how floating point arithmatic is handled in a language would be kind of like inventing your own alphabet for the English language or system of measurement: it isn't something you do, since no one else will use it and it makes interoperability impossible.   The standard already defines the events which generate exceptions during floating point operations: things like divide by zero, overflows, etc.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1009.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"n5iw3a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: NaN has no place in modern high-level languages In computing, NaN, or Not a Number, represents a value that is undefined or unrepresentable, especially in floating-point arithmetic. As I undestand, it's mostly used as a low-level optimization, so that you don't have to check for bad values while doing consecutive calculations. I think modern high-level languages should not use NaN. My reasoning is:  * You still have to check for NaN at the end. This doesn't save you any typing * It leads to inconsistencies that you have to keep in mind. E.g. `nan in [nan]` is true while `nan == nan` is false. Can you off the top of your head say what should be the result of the following:   * `1 \/ 0` and `nan \/ 0`   * `sqrt(-1)` and `sqrt(nan)`? * NaN can lead to rare crashes. As `1 < nan` and `1 > nan` are both false, using it for sorting can lead to some very hard to debug exceptions. Not only these won't signal the presence of NaN, but depending on your data can happen so rarely you would have troubles reproducing the issue.  Instead, an exception should be raised when an operation is invalid. CMV","c_root_id_A":"gx1lzyq","c_root_id_B":"gx1g1m1","created_at_utc_A":1620232800,"created_at_utc_B":1620230373,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> As I undestand, it's mostly used as a low-level optimization, so that you don't have to check for bad values while doing consecutive calculations  This isn\u2019t just a low level optimization. In a lot of domains it\u2019s common to write performance sensitive code in higher-level languages which strings together a series of mathematical operations, and which the added cost of a NaN check after every operation would be prohibitively expensive.  I\u2019m also not convinced having to deal with exceptions everywhere is inherently any better than having to deal with NaNs. You still have to remember to do a check in the end, and if you forget somewhere the consequences is arguably worse (your entire app crashing rather than displaying a bad value to the user).","human_ref_B":">NaN can lead to rare crashes. As 1 < nan and 1 > nan are both false, using it for sorting can lead to some very hard to debug exceptions. Not only these won't signal the presence of NaN, but depending on your data can happen so rarely you would have troubles reproducing the issue.  So what should be the answer of whether an object that can't be represented by as a number is compared to a number?  How do you get rid of Nan here?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2427.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"n5iw3a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: NaN has no place in modern high-level languages In computing, NaN, or Not a Number, represents a value that is undefined or unrepresentable, especially in floating-point arithmetic. As I undestand, it's mostly used as a low-level optimization, so that you don't have to check for bad values while doing consecutive calculations. I think modern high-level languages should not use NaN. My reasoning is:  * You still have to check for NaN at the end. This doesn't save you any typing * It leads to inconsistencies that you have to keep in mind. E.g. `nan in [nan]` is true while `nan == nan` is false. Can you off the top of your head say what should be the result of the following:   * `1 \/ 0` and `nan \/ 0`   * `sqrt(-1)` and `sqrt(nan)`? * NaN can lead to rare crashes. As `1 < nan` and `1 > nan` are both false, using it for sorting can lead to some very hard to debug exceptions. Not only these won't signal the presence of NaN, but depending on your data can happen so rarely you would have troubles reproducing the issue.  Instead, an exception should be raised when an operation is invalid. CMV","c_root_id_A":"gx1un7c","c_root_id_B":"gx1g1m1","created_at_utc_A":1620236335,"created_at_utc_B":1620230373,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> an exception should be raised when an operation is invalid  I think it should instead be part of the type system.  The result of the division of two floating point numbers should be a floating point number OR NaN (a union type or maybe type).  developers can then specify for their function whether or not they'll accept a NaN type as input and whether or not NaN is a possible output.","human_ref_B":">NaN can lead to rare crashes. As 1 < nan and 1 > nan are both false, using it for sorting can lead to some very hard to debug exceptions. Not only these won't signal the presence of NaN, but depending on your data can happen so rarely you would have troubles reproducing the issue.  So what should be the answer of whether an object that can't be represented by as a number is compared to a number?  How do you get rid of Nan here?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5962.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"n9xgwv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with \"faith\" or appeals to authority how religion does and the proof is in the way science manifests in reality. I recently posted a comment regarding the difference between faith in religion and the \"faith\" in atheism. A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality. I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is where our morals come from (and even that is quite contentious I believe).   I mainly would like to see where the holes in my argument are and what things I am not taking into account on the religious side. I would consider most good faith arguments about the role religion plays in reality as a CMV as I said I cannot think of anything that can compare.    Please see my comment below regarding my belief of why Atheism is not based in faith:    >The biggest difference between religion and atheism is most atheists would say they believe in science and following the evidence. So let's look at the evidence in the real world: Science has given us planes, cars, computers, rocketry, global positioning satellites, nuclear power. A bunch of things that actually ***work*** in reality. You can see science producing actual benefits (or detriments if you're so inclined, because all that really matters in this case is the evidence). You yourself can actually look into why something works and test it right now because of science. I struggle to think of anything religion has made reality, except maybe science itself.   >To quote Ricky Gervais:  >>Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and destroyed it, in a thousand years\u2019 time, that wouldn\u2019t come back just as it was.   >>Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they\u2019d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.","c_root_id_A":"gxqb783","c_root_id_B":"gxqbb37","created_at_utc_A":1620742109,"created_at_utc_B":1620742157,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"The definition of atheism I know is pretty much a declaration of faith in itself: \"I believe there is no God.\"  If you do not agree that this is a faith, consider this: You state you are absolutely certain that no God exists. You're not claiming there is no *proof* God exists, that science cannot prove a higher being exists.  Science itself, however, never \"proves\" anything. Scientists propose theory and then try to falsify them, to the best of of their abilities. If a theory cannot be falsified, there's a good chance it's true. But a good scientist will never claim his theory cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, it's not a scientific theory.  How can you be certain that there will not be a day when we find clear indications God, indeed, does exist? If you truly are certain about that, then this is your *belief*.  Aside from atheism, by the way, there's agnosticism, which is the belief that we don't know for *certain* if there is a god or not. I think that is much less a faith than atheism.","human_ref_B":"Atheism and science are distinct. One can be an atheist and not believe science. One can believe science and not be an atheist.  Aside from that, I argue science is based on faith. It's a very small amount of faith. Compared to religious folks it's not so much a leap as one very small step. David Hume reasoned that there exists a problem with inductive reasoning and that is one cannot trust that induction works without believing in both the principle of uniformity of nature and causality. How can one be sure that if A yields B a billion times in a row that A yields B the billion and 1th time? Since induction is not rational in the same way deduction is, you can't be rationally. That's faith too.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":48.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
+{"post_id":"n9xgwv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with \"faith\" or appeals to authority how religion does and the proof is in the way science manifests in reality. I recently posted a comment regarding the difference between faith in religion and the \"faith\" in atheism. A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality. I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is where our morals come from (and even that is quite contentious I believe).   I mainly would like to see where the holes in my argument are and what things I am not taking into account on the religious side. I would consider most good faith arguments about the role religion plays in reality as a CMV as I said I cannot think of anything that can compare.    Please see my comment below regarding my belief of why Atheism is not based in faith:    >The biggest difference between religion and atheism is most atheists would say they believe in science and following the evidence. So let's look at the evidence in the real world: Science has given us planes, cars, computers, rocketry, global positioning satellites, nuclear power. A bunch of things that actually ***work*** in reality. You can see science producing actual benefits (or detriments if you're so inclined, because all that really matters in this case is the evidence). You yourself can actually look into why something works and test it right now because of science. I struggle to think of anything religion has made reality, except maybe science itself.   >To quote Ricky Gervais:  >>Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and destroyed it, in a thousand years\u2019 time, that wouldn\u2019t come back just as it was.   >>Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they\u2019d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.","c_root_id_A":"gxqb783","c_root_id_B":"gxqnbb4","created_at_utc_A":1620742109,"created_at_utc_B":1620747311,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The definition of atheism I know is pretty much a declaration of faith in itself: \"I believe there is no God.\"  If you do not agree that this is a faith, consider this: You state you are absolutely certain that no God exists. You're not claiming there is no *proof* God exists, that science cannot prove a higher being exists.  Science itself, however, never \"proves\" anything. Scientists propose theory and then try to falsify them, to the best of of their abilities. If a theory cannot be falsified, there's a good chance it's true. But a good scientist will never claim his theory cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, it's not a scientific theory.  How can you be certain that there will not be a day when we find clear indications God, indeed, does exist? If you truly are certain about that, then this is your *belief*.  Aside from atheism, by the way, there's agnosticism, which is the belief that we don't know for *certain* if there is a god or not. I think that is much less a faith than atheism.","human_ref_B":"You seem to be equating the belief\/disbelief in God vs belief\/disbelief in science.  These two, while not entirely independent, need not be correlated.  Someone can be a hardline atheist but believe that Pluto is an alien artifact that is spying on earth or that gamma ray bursts are evidence of interstellar wars between advanced civilizations or that we live in a simulation.  Or you can have someone believing in God and being a world-renown astrophysicist.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5202.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"n9xgwv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with \"faith\" or appeals to authority how religion does and the proof is in the way science manifests in reality. I recently posted a comment regarding the difference between faith in religion and the \"faith\" in atheism. A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality. I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is where our morals come from (and even that is quite contentious I believe).   I mainly would like to see where the holes in my argument are and what things I am not taking into account on the religious side. I would consider most good faith arguments about the role religion plays in reality as a CMV as I said I cannot think of anything that can compare.    Please see my comment below regarding my belief of why Atheism is not based in faith:    >The biggest difference between religion and atheism is most atheists would say they believe in science and following the evidence. So let's look at the evidence in the real world: Science has given us planes, cars, computers, rocketry, global positioning satellites, nuclear power. A bunch of things that actually ***work*** in reality. You can see science producing actual benefits (or detriments if you're so inclined, because all that really matters in this case is the evidence). You yourself can actually look into why something works and test it right now because of science. I struggle to think of anything religion has made reality, except maybe science itself.   >To quote Ricky Gervais:  >>Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and destroyed it, in a thousand years\u2019 time, that wouldn\u2019t come back just as it was.   >>Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they\u2019d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.","c_root_id_A":"gxqnbb4","c_root_id_B":"gxqgonm","created_at_utc_A":1620747311,"created_at_utc_B":1620744499,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You seem to be equating the belief\/disbelief in God vs belief\/disbelief in science.  These two, while not entirely independent, need not be correlated.  Someone can be a hardline atheist but believe that Pluto is an alien artifact that is spying on earth or that gamma ray bursts are evidence of interstellar wars between advanced civilizations or that we live in a simulation.  Or you can have someone believing in God and being a world-renown astrophysicist.","human_ref_B":"So I see where you're coming from, but I think you're conflating a few concepts.  You're trying to say that atheism equals materialism, which is common enough on the internet, but then trying to also make that equal to science.  If science were the same thing as atheism, then religious people wouldn't really be able to do science.  But there are plenty of very good, and very religious scientists throughout history and even today.  And plenty of nonreligious ones.  Science is really meant to be independent of a number of beliefs, such as religious, political, or moral.  You do the same experiment, you should get the same result.  The example I usually give is that, if atheism is true, then salt will dissolve in water.  If theism is true... well, the same thing happens.  So the fact that science works isn't really evidence for either point of view.  To have materialism without any faith, I'd say you would have to prove that all known phenomena have strictly material causes.  That could happen someday, but it's definitely not happening today.  The most famous example is the hard problem of consciousness.  If you're not familiar with that, I recommend this video on it, which does a really good job of explaining it using a couple thought experiments.  Some people have walked away from materialism because of things like this, such as Thomas Nagel.  If you want to go deeper, you can check out an article like this.  None of this proves that materialism is *wrong*, per se, but it certain shows materialism is *unproven*.  And if you're going to believe in the unproven, then that takes faith.  At least a little.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2812.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"n9xgwv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with \"faith\" or appeals to authority how religion does and the proof is in the way science manifests in reality. I recently posted a comment regarding the difference between faith in religion and the \"faith\" in atheism. A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality. I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is where our morals come from (and even that is quite contentious I believe).   I mainly would like to see where the holes in my argument are and what things I am not taking into account on the religious side. I would consider most good faith arguments about the role religion plays in reality as a CMV as I said I cannot think of anything that can compare.    Please see my comment below regarding my belief of why Atheism is not based in faith:    >The biggest difference between religion and atheism is most atheists would say they believe in science and following the evidence. So let's look at the evidence in the real world: Science has given us planes, cars, computers, rocketry, global positioning satellites, nuclear power. A bunch of things that actually ***work*** in reality. You can see science producing actual benefits (or detriments if you're so inclined, because all that really matters in this case is the evidence). You yourself can actually look into why something works and test it right now because of science. I struggle to think of anything religion has made reality, except maybe science itself.   >To quote Ricky Gervais:  >>Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and destroyed it, in a thousand years\u2019 time, that wouldn\u2019t come back just as it was.   >>Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they\u2019d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.","c_root_id_A":"gxqc5aj","c_root_id_B":"gxqnbb4","created_at_utc_A":1620742534,"created_at_utc_B":1620747311,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"> A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality.   I believe your argument confuses a few things and could be made stronger. For one, a key thing is that atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. More specifically, the rejection of the claims made about god or god(s) by theistic or deistic sources.   While this lack of belief may be justified \/ rooted in the application of logic or the scientific method, e.g. citing a lack of evidence, atheism itself has nothing to do with science and requires no \"scientific proof\", as the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Atheists are not claiming anything. They are merely unconvinced about the claim that a god or gods exist.   >  I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of  manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is  where our morals come from   Although I see where you are coming from with this, it is phrased in an odd way as well. What I would say here is simply that we do not have any evidence of the supernatural \/ metaphysical, and we have no \"metaphysical\" method to falsify propositions about the supernatural. So yeah, philosophical claims like \"the existence of an objective morality is evidence of God\" are nonsense because (a) it assumes we know morality is objective and (b) it seeks to explain a phenomenon or characteristic of the physical universe with something outside of it that we have 0 evidence or understanding of.","human_ref_B":"You seem to be equating the belief\/disbelief in God vs belief\/disbelief in science.  These two, while not entirely independent, need not be correlated.  Someone can be a hardline atheist but believe that Pluto is an alien artifact that is spying on earth or that gamma ray bursts are evidence of interstellar wars between advanced civilizations or that we live in a simulation.  Or you can have someone believing in God and being a world-renown astrophysicist.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4777.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"n9xgwv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with \"faith\" or appeals to authority how religion does and the proof is in the way science manifests in reality. I recently posted a comment regarding the difference between faith in religion and the \"faith\" in atheism. A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality. I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is where our morals come from (and even that is quite contentious I believe).   I mainly would like to see where the holes in my argument are and what things I am not taking into account on the religious side. I would consider most good faith arguments about the role religion plays in reality as a CMV as I said I cannot think of anything that can compare.    Please see my comment below regarding my belief of why Atheism is not based in faith:    >The biggest difference between religion and atheism is most atheists would say they believe in science and following the evidence. So let's look at the evidence in the real world: Science has given us planes, cars, computers, rocketry, global positioning satellites, nuclear power. A bunch of things that actually ***work*** in reality. You can see science producing actual benefits (or detriments if you're so inclined, because all that really matters in this case is the evidence). You yourself can actually look into why something works and test it right now because of science. I struggle to think of anything religion has made reality, except maybe science itself.   >To quote Ricky Gervais:  >>Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and destroyed it, in a thousand years\u2019 time, that wouldn\u2019t come back just as it was.   >>Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they\u2019d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.","c_root_id_A":"gxqnbb4","c_root_id_B":"gxqcxzc","created_at_utc_A":1620747311,"created_at_utc_B":1620742883,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You seem to be equating the belief\/disbelief in God vs belief\/disbelief in science.  These two, while not entirely independent, need not be correlated.  Someone can be a hardline atheist but believe that Pluto is an alien artifact that is spying on earth or that gamma ray bursts are evidence of interstellar wars between advanced civilizations or that we live in a simulation.  Or you can have someone believing in God and being a world-renown astrophysicist.","human_ref_B":"> CMV: Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with \"faith\" or appeals to authority how religion does and the proof is in the way science manifests in reality.  A little bit of a messy sentence. But, everything that cannot be definitively proven has some degree of faith. And certainly the concept of God falls into that realm. Just because your beliefs are logically derived doesn\u2019t mean you\u2019re not ultimately trusting in something that you\u2019re not 100% certain of.  >I recently posted a comment regarding the difference between faith in religion and the \"faith\" in atheism. A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality. I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is where our morals come from (and even that is quite contentious I believe).   What are you referencing in terms of \u201cmanifesting in reality\u201d?  Using science to  prove things? What kind of manifestations are you looking for?   >I mainly would like to see where the holes in my argument are and what things I am not taking into account on the religious side. I would consider most good faith arguments about the role religion plays in reality as a CMV as I said I cannot think of anything that can compare.   Again your phrasing is difficult to understand here. Religion obviously has an impact on reality- wars, the Vatican existing, etc. What sort of \u201crole\u201d are you wanting?   >Please see my comment below regarding my belief of why Atheism is not based in faith:   Ok.  >The biggest difference between religion and atheism is most atheists would say they believe in science and following the evidence.   I\u2019m a Christian and I believe in this too. Science and religion should not be considered enemies.  >So let's look at the evidence in the real world: Science has given us planes, cars, computers, rocketry, global positioning satellites, nuclear power. A bunch of things that actually ***work*** in reality.   Yes. Your point? Why do you expect religion to give you planes etc.? Totally irrelevant to the point of whether atheism has any basis in faith.  >You can see science producing actual benefits (or detriments if you're so inclined, because all that really matters in this case is the evidence). You yourself can actually look into why something works and test it right now because of science. I struggle to think of anything religion has made reality, except maybe science itself.   See above. What would you even expect religion to make? And why is that relevant to whether or not atheism requires any faith?  Your whole view rests on religion being opposed to science, and atheism being aligned with it. In reality, neither atheism nor religion inherently require alignment or opposition to science.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4428.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"n9xgwv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with \"faith\" or appeals to authority how religion does and the proof is in the way science manifests in reality. I recently posted a comment regarding the difference between faith in religion and the \"faith\" in atheism. A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality. I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is where our morals come from (and even that is quite contentious I believe).   I mainly would like to see where the holes in my argument are and what things I am not taking into account on the religious side. I would consider most good faith arguments about the role religion plays in reality as a CMV as I said I cannot think of anything that can compare.    Please see my comment below regarding my belief of why Atheism is not based in faith:    >The biggest difference between religion and atheism is most atheists would say they believe in science and following the evidence. So let's look at the evidence in the real world: Science has given us planes, cars, computers, rocketry, global positioning satellites, nuclear power. A bunch of things that actually ***work*** in reality. You can see science producing actual benefits (or detriments if you're so inclined, because all that really matters in this case is the evidence). You yourself can actually look into why something works and test it right now because of science. I struggle to think of anything religion has made reality, except maybe science itself.   >To quote Ricky Gervais:  >>Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and destroyed it, in a thousand years\u2019 time, that wouldn\u2019t come back just as it was.   >>Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they\u2019d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.","c_root_id_A":"gxqgonm","c_root_id_B":"gxqb783","created_at_utc_A":1620744499,"created_at_utc_B":1620742109,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"So I see where you're coming from, but I think you're conflating a few concepts.  You're trying to say that atheism equals materialism, which is common enough on the internet, but then trying to also make that equal to science.  If science were the same thing as atheism, then religious people wouldn't really be able to do science.  But there are plenty of very good, and very religious scientists throughout history and even today.  And plenty of nonreligious ones.  Science is really meant to be independent of a number of beliefs, such as religious, political, or moral.  You do the same experiment, you should get the same result.  The example I usually give is that, if atheism is true, then salt will dissolve in water.  If theism is true... well, the same thing happens.  So the fact that science works isn't really evidence for either point of view.  To have materialism without any faith, I'd say you would have to prove that all known phenomena have strictly material causes.  That could happen someday, but it's definitely not happening today.  The most famous example is the hard problem of consciousness.  If you're not familiar with that, I recommend this video on it, which does a really good job of explaining it using a couple thought experiments.  Some people have walked away from materialism because of things like this, such as Thomas Nagel.  If you want to go deeper, you can check out an article like this.  None of this proves that materialism is *wrong*, per se, but it certain shows materialism is *unproven*.  And if you're going to believe in the unproven, then that takes faith.  At least a little.","human_ref_B":"The definition of atheism I know is pretty much a declaration of faith in itself: \"I believe there is no God.\"  If you do not agree that this is a faith, consider this: You state you are absolutely certain that no God exists. You're not claiming there is no *proof* God exists, that science cannot prove a higher being exists.  Science itself, however, never \"proves\" anything. Scientists propose theory and then try to falsify them, to the best of of their abilities. If a theory cannot be falsified, there's a good chance it's true. But a good scientist will never claim his theory cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, it's not a scientific theory.  How can you be certain that there will not be a day when we find clear indications God, indeed, does exist? If you truly are certain about that, then this is your *belief*.  Aside from atheism, by the way, there's agnosticism, which is the belief that we don't know for *certain* if there is a god or not. I think that is much less a faith than atheism.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2390.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"n9xgwv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with \"faith\" or appeals to authority how religion does and the proof is in the way science manifests in reality. I recently posted a comment regarding the difference between faith in religion and the \"faith\" in atheism. A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality. I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is where our morals come from (and even that is quite contentious I believe).   I mainly would like to see where the holes in my argument are and what things I am not taking into account on the religious side. I would consider most good faith arguments about the role religion plays in reality as a CMV as I said I cannot think of anything that can compare.    Please see my comment below regarding my belief of why Atheism is not based in faith:    >The biggest difference between religion and atheism is most atheists would say they believe in science and following the evidence. So let's look at the evidence in the real world: Science has given us planes, cars, computers, rocketry, global positioning satellites, nuclear power. A bunch of things that actually ***work*** in reality. You can see science producing actual benefits (or detriments if you're so inclined, because all that really matters in this case is the evidence). You yourself can actually look into why something works and test it right now because of science. I struggle to think of anything religion has made reality, except maybe science itself.   >To quote Ricky Gervais:  >>Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and destroyed it, in a thousand years\u2019 time, that wouldn\u2019t come back just as it was.   >>Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they\u2019d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.","c_root_id_A":"gxqc5aj","c_root_id_B":"gxqgonm","created_at_utc_A":1620742534,"created_at_utc_B":1620744499,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality.   I believe your argument confuses a few things and could be made stronger. For one, a key thing is that atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. More specifically, the rejection of the claims made about god or god(s) by theistic or deistic sources.   While this lack of belief may be justified \/ rooted in the application of logic or the scientific method, e.g. citing a lack of evidence, atheism itself has nothing to do with science and requires no \"scientific proof\", as the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Atheists are not claiming anything. They are merely unconvinced about the claim that a god or gods exist.   >  I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of  manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is  where our morals come from   Although I see where you are coming from with this, it is phrased in an odd way as well. What I would say here is simply that we do not have any evidence of the supernatural \/ metaphysical, and we have no \"metaphysical\" method to falsify propositions about the supernatural. So yeah, philosophical claims like \"the existence of an objective morality is evidence of God\" are nonsense because (a) it assumes we know morality is objective and (b) it seeks to explain a phenomenon or characteristic of the physical universe with something outside of it that we have 0 evidence or understanding of.","human_ref_B":"So I see where you're coming from, but I think you're conflating a few concepts.  You're trying to say that atheism equals materialism, which is common enough on the internet, but then trying to also make that equal to science.  If science were the same thing as atheism, then religious people wouldn't really be able to do science.  But there are plenty of very good, and very religious scientists throughout history and even today.  And plenty of nonreligious ones.  Science is really meant to be independent of a number of beliefs, such as religious, political, or moral.  You do the same experiment, you should get the same result.  The example I usually give is that, if atheism is true, then salt will dissolve in water.  If theism is true... well, the same thing happens.  So the fact that science works isn't really evidence for either point of view.  To have materialism without any faith, I'd say you would have to prove that all known phenomena have strictly material causes.  That could happen someday, but it's definitely not happening today.  The most famous example is the hard problem of consciousness.  If you're not familiar with that, I recommend this video on it, which does a really good job of explaining it using a couple thought experiments.  Some people have walked away from materialism because of things like this, such as Thomas Nagel.  If you want to go deeper, you can check out an article like this.  None of this proves that materialism is *wrong*, per se, but it certain shows materialism is *unproven*.  And if you're going to believe in the unproven, then that takes faith.  At least a little.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1965.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"n9xgwv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with \"faith\" or appeals to authority how religion does and the proof is in the way science manifests in reality. I recently posted a comment regarding the difference between faith in religion and the \"faith\" in atheism. A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality. I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is where our morals come from (and even that is quite contentious I believe).   I mainly would like to see where the holes in my argument are and what things I am not taking into account on the religious side. I would consider most good faith arguments about the role religion plays in reality as a CMV as I said I cannot think of anything that can compare.    Please see my comment below regarding my belief of why Atheism is not based in faith:    >The biggest difference between religion and atheism is most atheists would say they believe in science and following the evidence. So let's look at the evidence in the real world: Science has given us planes, cars, computers, rocketry, global positioning satellites, nuclear power. A bunch of things that actually ***work*** in reality. You can see science producing actual benefits (or detriments if you're so inclined, because all that really matters in this case is the evidence). You yourself can actually look into why something works and test it right now because of science. I struggle to think of anything religion has made reality, except maybe science itself.   >To quote Ricky Gervais:  >>Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and destroyed it, in a thousand years\u2019 time, that wouldn\u2019t come back just as it was.   >>Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they\u2019d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.","c_root_id_A":"gxqgonm","c_root_id_B":"gxqcxzc","created_at_utc_A":1620744499,"created_at_utc_B":1620742883,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So I see where you're coming from, but I think you're conflating a few concepts.  You're trying to say that atheism equals materialism, which is common enough on the internet, but then trying to also make that equal to science.  If science were the same thing as atheism, then religious people wouldn't really be able to do science.  But there are plenty of very good, and very religious scientists throughout history and even today.  And plenty of nonreligious ones.  Science is really meant to be independent of a number of beliefs, such as religious, political, or moral.  You do the same experiment, you should get the same result.  The example I usually give is that, if atheism is true, then salt will dissolve in water.  If theism is true... well, the same thing happens.  So the fact that science works isn't really evidence for either point of view.  To have materialism without any faith, I'd say you would have to prove that all known phenomena have strictly material causes.  That could happen someday, but it's definitely not happening today.  The most famous example is the hard problem of consciousness.  If you're not familiar with that, I recommend this video on it, which does a really good job of explaining it using a couple thought experiments.  Some people have walked away from materialism because of things like this, such as Thomas Nagel.  If you want to go deeper, you can check out an article like this.  None of this proves that materialism is *wrong*, per se, but it certain shows materialism is *unproven*.  And if you're going to believe in the unproven, then that takes faith.  At least a little.","human_ref_B":"> CMV: Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with \"faith\" or appeals to authority how religion does and the proof is in the way science manifests in reality.  A little bit of a messy sentence. But, everything that cannot be definitively proven has some degree of faith. And certainly the concept of God falls into that realm. Just because your beliefs are logically derived doesn\u2019t mean you\u2019re not ultimately trusting in something that you\u2019re not 100% certain of.  >I recently posted a comment regarding the difference between faith in religion and the \"faith\" in atheism. A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality. I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is where our morals come from (and even that is quite contentious I believe).   What are you referencing in terms of \u201cmanifesting in reality\u201d?  Using science to  prove things? What kind of manifestations are you looking for?   >I mainly would like to see where the holes in my argument are and what things I am not taking into account on the religious side. I would consider most good faith arguments about the role religion plays in reality as a CMV as I said I cannot think of anything that can compare.   Again your phrasing is difficult to understand here. Religion obviously has an impact on reality- wars, the Vatican existing, etc. What sort of \u201crole\u201d are you wanting?   >Please see my comment below regarding my belief of why Atheism is not based in faith:   Ok.  >The biggest difference between religion and atheism is most atheists would say they believe in science and following the evidence.   I\u2019m a Christian and I believe in this too. Science and religion should not be considered enemies.  >So let's look at the evidence in the real world: Science has given us planes, cars, computers, rocketry, global positioning satellites, nuclear power. A bunch of things that actually ***work*** in reality.   Yes. Your point? Why do you expect religion to give you planes etc.? Totally irrelevant to the point of whether atheism has any basis in faith.  >You can see science producing actual benefits (or detriments if you're so inclined, because all that really matters in this case is the evidence). You yourself can actually look into why something works and test it right now because of science. I struggle to think of anything religion has made reality, except maybe science itself.   See above. What would you even expect religion to make? And why is that relevant to whether or not atheism requires any faith?  Your whole view rests on religion being opposed to science, and atheism being aligned with it. In reality, neither atheism nor religion inherently require alignment or opposition to science.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1616.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"8vwl3l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: I don't think transgender women (M to F) should be allowed to compete against women. I've seen a couple of news articles about trans women winning out competitions like wresting, mma and sprinting against women who were born as such.  I've no problem with people being trans or anything of the sort but I do not think it is fair to have women with more genetic similarities to men than women competing against women.  Men are naturally stronger than women, the weakest man is more than likely stronger than the majority of women.  And to have someone transition from male to female leads to estrogen hormone therapy, estrogen is known to affect bone density, when you have a body with male bones taking estrogen it reduces resorption, leading to a maintained dense bone.     When you couple that with being naturally stronger and a physique geared towards being bigger faster and stronger it's no wonder a trans wrestler dominates, or why a trans fighter knocks out their opponent in 36 seconds..  I don't think it's fair to women, I can see why it may be deemed unfair to trans women but the alternative is a female catergory dominated by women who were men, women with very high levels of testosterone by comparison to any other woman they encounter.  I am all for testosterone ruling(s) and not allowing trans women compete with women.  IMO, if you were born a male you are always genetically a male, you have complete freedom to transition if you please but the genetic component should be strongly considered when it has as much as an impact as it evidently does in sport.","c_root_id_A":"e1qylb5","c_root_id_B":"e1qwpa4","created_at_utc_A":1530660366,"created_at_utc_B":1530658498,"score_A":18,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I believe the answer to this question is more nuanced then always or never.  One of the big problems with this is that the media likes to latch on to these cases where it is a bit suspicious that trans women should be allowed and doesn't ever look at cases where the trans woman is just mediocre at the sport.   Chloe Anderson entered as a D3 volleyball player at UCSC. Even in D3 she didn't perform very well and dropped off the team after less then 1 season (I believe...). This is just one example of a mediocre trans athlete, like I said it is hard to find more.   I'm trans and have a personal anecdote. In high school I was pushing fairly close to a 4 minute mile. After starting estrogen in college, my times fell off almost dramatically. After about a year I could barely put up 6 minute miles. Especially my recovery was just so much worse, I could hardly even train as much. I was not competing on the collegiate level, but I felt I was keeping up a solid workout regime.  Second, we have the case of Fallon Fox who did beat that one high profile competitor, but after that fought a bunch of potato sacks before retiring and lost to one of the better ones. Its hard to say she, \"dominated,\" the field. She was good yes, but not head and shoulders above the rest.  No we do have that weight lifter and the high school track athletes who do appear to be suspicious and a bit unfair. These athletes were mediocre competing in the men's category and then upon transitioning started setting records. Perhaps their physical structure ought to be evaluated more.   Another consideration is that there are some women athletes who are just physically huge and strong. There is the case of Caster Semenya where she had medical condition which caused her body to produce atypical amounts of testosterone and thus her skeletal structure and muscle building about was very very good. She dominated the competition. Do we think she should be competing with men? Furthermore, should we have to create separate categories for these super athletes? There are guys in athletics who are clearly so much bigger, stronger, and faster then the vast majority of their competitors that they crush most with ease. Maybe we need a separate category for them?  I've been puzzling this around in my head for a while and the conclusion I've drawn is there needs to be some kind of handicap system put in place for sports to truly make it about skill and training. The handicap would be based on baseline bodily conditions like bone density or hormone levels. This was cis women and trans women could compete together but the ones who are extremely blessed physically would still be forced to train as much as the lesser girls in order to compete with them.","human_ref_B":">I am all for testosterone ruling(s) and not allowing trans women compete with women.  Does this part mean that you're fine if transwomen and ciswomen compete in the same testosterone level category?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1868.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"8vwl3l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: I don't think transgender women (M to F) should be allowed to compete against women. I've seen a couple of news articles about trans women winning out competitions like wresting, mma and sprinting against women who were born as such.  I've no problem with people being trans or anything of the sort but I do not think it is fair to have women with more genetic similarities to men than women competing against women.  Men are naturally stronger than women, the weakest man is more than likely stronger than the majority of women.  And to have someone transition from male to female leads to estrogen hormone therapy, estrogen is known to affect bone density, when you have a body with male bones taking estrogen it reduces resorption, leading to a maintained dense bone.     When you couple that with being naturally stronger and a physique geared towards being bigger faster and stronger it's no wonder a trans wrestler dominates, or why a trans fighter knocks out their opponent in 36 seconds..  I don't think it's fair to women, I can see why it may be deemed unfair to trans women but the alternative is a female catergory dominated by women who were men, women with very high levels of testosterone by comparison to any other woman they encounter.  I am all for testosterone ruling(s) and not allowing trans women compete with women.  IMO, if you were born a male you are always genetically a male, you have complete freedom to transition if you please but the genetic component should be strongly considered when it has as much as an impact as it evidently does in sport.","c_root_id_A":"e1qwqgt","c_root_id_B":"e1qylb5","created_at_utc_A":1530658529,"created_at_utc_B":1530660366,"score_A":8,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Think about a specific trans woman athlete. Let's say, Fallon Fox.   Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that everything about Fallon Fox that you think provides an advantage in sports is exactly the same as it is now - bone density, muscle mass, etc. - except Fallon Fox isn't trans. She's a cis woman who happens to be blessed with unusually good genetics for competing in MMA.    Do you still think that it's unfair for Fallon Fox to compete in MMA in this scenario? If you do not, then it's not actually the physical advantages of trans women that are backing up your position; it's the mere fact that trans women are trans.","human_ref_B":"I believe the answer to this question is more nuanced then always or never.  One of the big problems with this is that the media likes to latch on to these cases where it is a bit suspicious that trans women should be allowed and doesn't ever look at cases where the trans woman is just mediocre at the sport.   Chloe Anderson entered as a D3 volleyball player at UCSC. Even in D3 she didn't perform very well and dropped off the team after less then 1 season (I believe...). This is just one example of a mediocre trans athlete, like I said it is hard to find more.   I'm trans and have a personal anecdote. In high school I was pushing fairly close to a 4 minute mile. After starting estrogen in college, my times fell off almost dramatically. After about a year I could barely put up 6 minute miles. Especially my recovery was just so much worse, I could hardly even train as much. I was not competing on the collegiate level, but I felt I was keeping up a solid workout regime.  Second, we have the case of Fallon Fox who did beat that one high profile competitor, but after that fought a bunch of potato sacks before retiring and lost to one of the better ones. Its hard to say she, \"dominated,\" the field. She was good yes, but not head and shoulders above the rest.  No we do have that weight lifter and the high school track athletes who do appear to be suspicious and a bit unfair. These athletes were mediocre competing in the men's category and then upon transitioning started setting records. Perhaps their physical structure ought to be evaluated more.   Another consideration is that there are some women athletes who are just physically huge and strong. There is the case of Caster Semenya where she had medical condition which caused her body to produce atypical amounts of testosterone and thus her skeletal structure and muscle building about was very very good. She dominated the competition. Do we think she should be competing with men? Furthermore, should we have to create separate categories for these super athletes? There are guys in athletics who are clearly so much bigger, stronger, and faster then the vast majority of their competitors that they crush most with ease. Maybe we need a separate category for them?  I've been puzzling this around in my head for a while and the conclusion I've drawn is there needs to be some kind of handicap system put in place for sports to truly make it about skill and training. The handicap would be based on baseline bodily conditions like bone density or hormone levels. This was cis women and trans women could compete together but the ones who are extremely blessed physically would still be forced to train as much as the lesser girls in order to compete with them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1837.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"6f7xtv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: if a conservative had said the N-word like Bill Maher had, everyone would be demanding their resignation As a liberal, the whole Bill Maher saga has struck me as extremely hypocritical. You can't possibly tell me that people wouldn't try to take Rush Limbaugh off the air for that line, not after Don Imus was run off the air (at least for a while) for saying \"nappy-headed hoes\".    So why do we give Bill Maher a pass? It's  not like he doesn't have a history of [Islamophobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/sZGC56pfWKo), and [transphobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/lImHh7fqrQo).  Worse, much of this isn't even \"comedy\" which is the defense I hear for the N-word usage here.   So why do liberals allow Bill Maher to pretend he's a liberal and give him a free pass to say whatever the hell he wants? Is that not extremely hypocritical, considering we have taken the pitchforks out for many other racist statements by entertainers?  Change my view!","c_root_id_A":"dig4802","c_root_id_B":"dig3y98","created_at_utc_A":1496591912,"created_at_utc_B":1496591543,"score_A":15,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Who is giving Maher a pass? I'm a liberal and I think the guy is a bigot. I stopped watching him a long time ago. The few people I know who are giving him a pass are actually black moderates who are sick of political correctness. I have yet to see one of my liberal friends defend Maher on this topic. And I've got a load of liberal friends. I know this is just anecdotal evidence. So here's an article from liberal NBC showing more outrage at Maher's behavior.  http:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/news\/us-news\/bill-maher-draws-backlash-using-n-word-real-time-n767926","human_ref_B":"Roxanne Gay, a leading Feminist has written a book called 'bad feminist' about how she screws up all the time, how she gets things wrong, how she has guilty pleasures about how she thinks sexist thoughts.  You could argue that we ought not to apply a puritanical standard to anyone..not even Bill Maher. Is Mahers overall intent to fight against racism? AFAIK I would say yes.  What is gained by sacrificing someone every time they slip up? you just incentivise people to hide, pretend, fake it and so on, we are human, we are not perfect.  Using the N word is unacceptable and he does need some hear for it but firing him is probably ridiculous unless the utterance was designed to demean which it was not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":369.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"6f7xtv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: if a conservative had said the N-word like Bill Maher had, everyone would be demanding their resignation As a liberal, the whole Bill Maher saga has struck me as extremely hypocritical. You can't possibly tell me that people wouldn't try to take Rush Limbaugh off the air for that line, not after Don Imus was run off the air (at least for a while) for saying \"nappy-headed hoes\".    So why do we give Bill Maher a pass? It's  not like he doesn't have a history of [Islamophobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/sZGC56pfWKo), and [transphobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/lImHh7fqrQo).  Worse, much of this isn't even \"comedy\" which is the defense I hear for the N-word usage here.   So why do liberals allow Bill Maher to pretend he's a liberal and give him a free pass to say whatever the hell he wants? Is that not extremely hypocritical, considering we have taken the pitchforks out for many other racist statements by entertainers?  Change my view!","c_root_id_A":"dig5lpi","c_root_id_B":"dig3y98","created_at_utc_A":1496593782,"created_at_utc_B":1496591543,"score_A":13,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"In no way shape or form has Maher gotten a \"free pass\". He's been raked over the coals the past few days by liberals. But he pretty much immediately apologized, HBO apologized, the line was edited out of subsequent airings. And he's still being criticized (and rightfully so in my view) including some people calling for him to be taken off the air (which I don't agree with)  But there's a key difference between Maher and Rush Limbaugh or Don Imus, and that difference is HBO versus Network TV or Radio. Specifically, ads. I think you give too much credit if you think that getting rid of Don Imus or Bill O'Reilly was done merely because it was \"the right thing to do\". These networks are based on ad revenue, and once advertisers start pulling out, that's that. And if advertiser's don't pull out, the networks will put up with a LOT of racist \/ sexist shit before serious actions are taken. HBO is subscription based, not ad based, so it doesn't have the same concerns, so it naturally will take a lot more to get someone fired (as in, are individual people going to cut off their source of Game of Thrones to protest Maher? Maybe... but probably not)  Also, in context I do think Maher's current kerfuffle is less offensive to me than Imus's comment. Maher's joke was in extremely poor taste, and not even funny, but it was clearly meant to be a joke and wasn't explicitly directed at any specific individuals. Even though the actual language wasn't as severe in isolation, Imus's comment was directed directly at a college women's basketball team, which I think made it a lot harder to move past.  Finally, you say liberals allow Bill Maher to \"pretend he's a liberal\". Which seems like a curious thing to say. Have you watched his show? Are you seriously going to content that Bill Maher's *not* a liberal? You can say he's a shitty liberal, or a racist liberal, but if you look at the totality of his political views, saying that he's somehow not a liberal reeks of the \"No true scotsman\" fallacy.","human_ref_B":"Roxanne Gay, a leading Feminist has written a book called 'bad feminist' about how she screws up all the time, how she gets things wrong, how she has guilty pleasures about how she thinks sexist thoughts.  You could argue that we ought not to apply a puritanical standard to anyone..not even Bill Maher. Is Mahers overall intent to fight against racism? AFAIK I would say yes.  What is gained by sacrificing someone every time they slip up? you just incentivise people to hide, pretend, fake it and so on, we are human, we are not perfect.  Using the N word is unacceptable and he does need some hear for it but firing him is probably ridiculous unless the utterance was designed to demean which it was not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2239.0,"score_ratio":1.0833333333}
+{"post_id":"6f7xtv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: if a conservative had said the N-word like Bill Maher had, everyone would be demanding their resignation As a liberal, the whole Bill Maher saga has struck me as extremely hypocritical. You can't possibly tell me that people wouldn't try to take Rush Limbaugh off the air for that line, not after Don Imus was run off the air (at least for a while) for saying \"nappy-headed hoes\".    So why do we give Bill Maher a pass? It's  not like he doesn't have a history of [Islamophobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/sZGC56pfWKo), and [transphobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/lImHh7fqrQo).  Worse, much of this isn't even \"comedy\" which is the defense I hear for the N-word usage here.   So why do liberals allow Bill Maher to pretend he's a liberal and give him a free pass to say whatever the hell he wants? Is that not extremely hypocritical, considering we have taken the pitchforks out for many other racist statements by entertainers?  Change my view!","c_root_id_A":"dig3y98","c_root_id_B":"dig5pe1","created_at_utc_A":1496591543,"created_at_utc_B":1496593920,"score_A":12,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Roxanne Gay, a leading Feminist has written a book called 'bad feminist' about how she screws up all the time, how she gets things wrong, how she has guilty pleasures about how she thinks sexist thoughts.  You could argue that we ought not to apply a puritanical standard to anyone..not even Bill Maher. Is Mahers overall intent to fight against racism? AFAIK I would say yes.  What is gained by sacrificing someone every time they slip up? you just incentivise people to hide, pretend, fake it and so on, we are human, we are not perfect.  Using the N word is unacceptable and he does need some hear for it but firing him is probably ridiculous unless the utterance was designed to demean which it was not.","human_ref_B":"I wish there was a formal name for this logical error, because I see it often and find myself having to explain it every time. There's no such thing as collective hypocrisy. An individual person can be a hypocrite. A broad group full of internal disagreement, not so much. Liberals are not some single entity that needs to make up its mind on issues like it's one person.  The moment we ascribe simplified collective opinions to groups, anything can look like a double standard. But no liberal is made a hypocrite by how some other liberal might treat some hypothetical conservative.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2377.0,"score_ratio":1.0833333333}
+{"post_id":"6f7xtv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: if a conservative had said the N-word like Bill Maher had, everyone would be demanding their resignation As a liberal, the whole Bill Maher saga has struck me as extremely hypocritical. You can't possibly tell me that people wouldn't try to take Rush Limbaugh off the air for that line, not after Don Imus was run off the air (at least for a while) for saying \"nappy-headed hoes\".    So why do we give Bill Maher a pass? It's  not like he doesn't have a history of [Islamophobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/sZGC56pfWKo), and [transphobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/lImHh7fqrQo).  Worse, much of this isn't even \"comedy\" which is the defense I hear for the N-word usage here.   So why do liberals allow Bill Maher to pretend he's a liberal and give him a free pass to say whatever the hell he wants? Is that not extremely hypocritical, considering we have taken the pitchforks out for many other racist statements by entertainers?  Change my view!","c_root_id_A":"dig5mwc","c_root_id_B":"dig5pe1","created_at_utc_A":1496593826,"created_at_utc_B":1496593920,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"It is only hypocritical if the only reason people criticize the n-word is because of the word itself.  By that I mean absent context and intent.  I agree that many liberals are hypocritical in this way, but I am not one of those liberals.    Few people care when a black person uses the word because it is obvious the intent is not hateful.  Contrast that to when a kkk member uses the word in a hateful way and you have the 2 extremes of how the word is used.  Lots of room in the middle to judge accordingly.    Now also take into account that some people hate pc culture and believe in free speech so much thay they refuse to accept that a word is off limits. Those people may never dream of using the word in hate but they use it in protest and to be edgy. In this category I put guys like louis CK and Bill Maher.   They make arguments for the use of bad words that you may disagree with, but those arguments have no grounding in hate.  In other words, they are arguably wrong, but if so they are at least sincere.    I personally am a white guy who wont even say the word if its in quotes, but I also recognize that when judging intent, Bill Mahers dumb joke falls on the lower end if the racist spectrum. Keep in mind that in my judgement of Bill, I dont see him as having a history of islamophobia etc.  If Rush used it however, people would absolutely be calling for his head, and many of those people will be hypocrites, but I personally would feel differently about it because I believe he has hate in his heart.  You need to gain some credibility if benign intent is to be believed and I think Maher has more credibility to be believed than Rush. plain and simple.","human_ref_B":"I wish there was a formal name for this logical error, because I see it often and find myself having to explain it every time. There's no such thing as collective hypocrisy. An individual person can be a hypocrite. A broad group full of internal disagreement, not so much. Liberals are not some single entity that needs to make up its mind on issues like it's one person.  The moment we ascribe simplified collective opinions to groups, anything can look like a double standard. But no liberal is made a hypocrite by how some other liberal might treat some hypothetical conservative.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":94.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
+{"post_id":"6f7xtv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: if a conservative had said the N-word like Bill Maher had, everyone would be demanding their resignation As a liberal, the whole Bill Maher saga has struck me as extremely hypocritical. You can't possibly tell me that people wouldn't try to take Rush Limbaugh off the air for that line, not after Don Imus was run off the air (at least for a while) for saying \"nappy-headed hoes\".    So why do we give Bill Maher a pass? It's  not like he doesn't have a history of [Islamophobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/sZGC56pfWKo), and [transphobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/lImHh7fqrQo).  Worse, much of this isn't even \"comedy\" which is the defense I hear for the N-word usage here.   So why do liberals allow Bill Maher to pretend he's a liberal and give him a free pass to say whatever the hell he wants? Is that not extremely hypocritical, considering we have taken the pitchforks out for many other racist statements by entertainers?  Change my view!","c_root_id_A":"dig5mwc","c_root_id_B":"digdb3r","created_at_utc_A":1496593826,"created_at_utc_B":1496603726,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"It is only hypocritical if the only reason people criticize the n-word is because of the word itself.  By that I mean absent context and intent.  I agree that many liberals are hypocritical in this way, but I am not one of those liberals.    Few people care when a black person uses the word because it is obvious the intent is not hateful.  Contrast that to when a kkk member uses the word in a hateful way and you have the 2 extremes of how the word is used.  Lots of room in the middle to judge accordingly.    Now also take into account that some people hate pc culture and believe in free speech so much thay they refuse to accept that a word is off limits. Those people may never dream of using the word in hate but they use it in protest and to be edgy. In this category I put guys like louis CK and Bill Maher.   They make arguments for the use of bad words that you may disagree with, but those arguments have no grounding in hate.  In other words, they are arguably wrong, but if so they are at least sincere.    I personally am a white guy who wont even say the word if its in quotes, but I also recognize that when judging intent, Bill Mahers dumb joke falls on the lower end if the racist spectrum. Keep in mind that in my judgement of Bill, I dont see him as having a history of islamophobia etc.  If Rush used it however, people would absolutely be calling for his head, and many of those people will be hypocrites, but I personally would feel differently about it because I believe he has hate in his heart.  You need to gain some credibility if benign intent is to be believed and I think Maher has more credibility to be believed than Rush. plain and simple.","human_ref_B":"Of course it would've been different if a conservative had said it. Beside the fact that Bill regularly has black guests on, including Cornell West two weeks where they were acting like old buddies and grabbing each other's hands, and the fact he donated a million dollars to the black president running against the white guy a few years back, he also supports policies that don't kill black people. If some crusty old white man said it who champions gutting welfare and medicaid that will hit impoverished black communities hardest and literally kill them so some old rich white dudes can get a tax break, yeah... it would be different.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9900.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"6f7xtv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: if a conservative had said the N-word like Bill Maher had, everyone would be demanding their resignation As a liberal, the whole Bill Maher saga has struck me as extremely hypocritical. You can't possibly tell me that people wouldn't try to take Rush Limbaugh off the air for that line, not after Don Imus was run off the air (at least for a while) for saying \"nappy-headed hoes\".    So why do we give Bill Maher a pass? It's  not like he doesn't have a history of [Islamophobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/sZGC56pfWKo), and [transphobia] (https:\/\/youtu.be\/lImHh7fqrQo).  Worse, much of this isn't even \"comedy\" which is the defense I hear for the N-word usage here.   So why do liberals allow Bill Maher to pretend he's a liberal and give him a free pass to say whatever the hell he wants? Is that not extremely hypocritical, considering we have taken the pitchforks out for many other racist statements by entertainers?  Change my view!","c_root_id_A":"digbige","c_root_id_B":"digdb3r","created_at_utc_A":1496601411,"created_at_utc_B":1496603726,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"There does seem to be a double standard here, however it's the platforms that make a difference. Bill's show is a premium cable channel partially paid for through subscriptions rather than external advertisers. Money talks and that's why when advertisers leave a basic cable show that show and the host is in trouble. At HBO, unless subscribers leave en-mass then the money isn't talking.   That's what's happened to Don Imus, his advertisers left so he had to go. That's what happened to Bill O'Reilly, when the money jumps ship Bill was still left on a basic cable program. People don't subscribe to Fox.   So **CMV**: These drum-beats taking hosts out of their shows I think are rarely political. It's rarely a network executive saying, \"You said something so crazy we have to take you out of here. People are complaining.\" It's much more often, \"Sorry, your show is costing us money.\"  Tim Allen recently lost his show on ABC *Last Man Standing*. As an outspoken conservative in \"Hollywood\" Tim Allen was pretty quick to politicize the connection between his support of Trump and ABC dropping the show. However the truth of the matter is more about money than politics. ABC aired his show but it was produced by 20th Century Fox who essentially paid for everything. This next season that arrangement was ending and ABC would have to start picking up the tab. They didn't want to.   Money > Politics in most cases like this.","human_ref_B":"Of course it would've been different if a conservative had said it. Beside the fact that Bill regularly has black guests on, including Cornell West two weeks where they were acting like old buddies and grabbing each other's hands, and the fact he donated a million dollars to the black president running against the white guy a few years back, he also supports policies that don't kill black people. If some crusty old white man said it who champions gutting welfare and medicaid that will hit impoverished black communities hardest and literally kill them so some old rich white dudes can get a tax break, yeah... it would be different.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2315.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxug2av","c_root_id_B":"fxuhm6e","created_at_utc_A":1594574151,"created_at_utc_B":1594574933,"score_A":13,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"The problem is that wedge issues aren't wedge issues because every politician necessarily makes them a big issue of their campaign. They're wedge issues because they're easily deployed against your opponents and everyone is required to have an opinion on them. Your centrist-populist party guy can run on those popular issues but he's going to be asked about abortion and gun control and trans rights. And the \"Mr. Populist won't say his opinion on abortion\" headline is worse than just saying an opinion on the issue.","human_ref_B":"The issue with unified left- and right-wing populism that completely ignores cultural discourse is that although both sides may end up agreeing on the *problems*, there still lies a significant gap to bridge with regards to the *solutions*.   The Nazis, for example, were environmentalists. Instead of increasing regulation of industry, as most liberals\/leftists would advocate, they laid the blame on Jews, Poles, and other minorities. It's debatable whether they truly even believed in environmentalism, or if they were just using it as a thinly-veiled excuse for their bigotry.   Another thing is there is no guarantee that both sides will work together long enough for actual progress to be made. Trump's rhetoric in his 2016 campaign was grounded in populist rhetoric - he even called for raising taxes on the rich. When it came down to the actual policy, however, it ended up being just that - rhetoric.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":782.0,"score_ratio":2.2307692308}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxuhm6e","c_root_id_B":"fxug3wl","created_at_utc_A":1594574933,"created_at_utc_B":1594574174,"score_A":29,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"The issue with unified left- and right-wing populism that completely ignores cultural discourse is that although both sides may end up agreeing on the *problems*, there still lies a significant gap to bridge with regards to the *solutions*.   The Nazis, for example, were environmentalists. Instead of increasing regulation of industry, as most liberals\/leftists would advocate, they laid the blame on Jews, Poles, and other minorities. It's debatable whether they truly even believed in environmentalism, or if they were just using it as a thinly-veiled excuse for their bigotry.   Another thing is there is no guarantee that both sides will work together long enough for actual progress to be made. Trump's rhetoric in his 2016 campaign was grounded in populist rhetoric - he even called for raising taxes on the rich. When it came down to the actual policy, however, it ended up being just that - rhetoric.","human_ref_B":"> Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements.   In your opinion, why do Republican voters consistently vote against these interests and decry them as \"socalism\" and \"facism\" despite most certainly being captured in the statistics you mention?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":759.0,"score_ratio":2.6363636364}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxugp7t","c_root_id_B":"fxuhm6e","created_at_utc_A":1594574476,"created_at_utc_B":1594574933,"score_A":4,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"The issue is that people who \"support\" these things don't always support the necessary changes to society. There is no widely agreed upon political and economic reform. People are losing their minds over having to wear a facemask. The centrism approach of \"both sides\" is a fever dream at best. At worst it ignores the plights of the average American as something solvable by just getting along.   Defunding the police is a great example. Entertaining the idea is considered fringe with zero budge for listening to alternative solutions. That's not something that a populist agenda would solve. Rather it'd be perpetuated behind discussion, bureaucracy, etc. Meanwhile law enforcement would still have relatively unchecked lethal power.  We all want to believe that there's a central majority that just wants the best. That's just not the case. What people want is to feel good about supporting social safety nets while not actually wanting their lives interrupted. They want to say black lives matter but aren't willing to change the status quo to achieve it. It's not out of evil, it's out of apathy. Maybe they cared once but have become complacent and apathetic towards the harsh realities faced by others.  Appealing to the masses would, in my opinion, just cause stagnation through deliberation. If a person is going to support those necessary changes it's going to come at the cost of approval on other things or by specific demographics. Prioritizing the importance of the change is more crucial than waiting for everyone to get on board with the idea.","human_ref_B":"The issue with unified left- and right-wing populism that completely ignores cultural discourse is that although both sides may end up agreeing on the *problems*, there still lies a significant gap to bridge with regards to the *solutions*.   The Nazis, for example, were environmentalists. Instead of increasing regulation of industry, as most liberals\/leftists would advocate, they laid the blame on Jews, Poles, and other minorities. It's debatable whether they truly even believed in environmentalism, or if they were just using it as a thinly-veiled excuse for their bigotry.   Another thing is there is no guarantee that both sides will work together long enough for actual progress to be made. Trump's rhetoric in his 2016 campaign was grounded in populist rhetoric - he even called for raising taxes on the rich. When it came down to the actual policy, however, it ended up being just that - rhetoric.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":457.0,"score_ratio":7.25}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxuhm6e","c_root_id_B":"fxuge2r","created_at_utc_A":1594574933,"created_at_utc_B":1594574319,"score_A":29,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The issue with unified left- and right-wing populism that completely ignores cultural discourse is that although both sides may end up agreeing on the *problems*, there still lies a significant gap to bridge with regards to the *solutions*.   The Nazis, for example, were environmentalists. Instead of increasing regulation of industry, as most liberals\/leftists would advocate, they laid the blame on Jews, Poles, and other minorities. It's debatable whether they truly even believed in environmentalism, or if they were just using it as a thinly-veiled excuse for their bigotry.   Another thing is there is no guarantee that both sides will work together long enough for actual progress to be made. Trump's rhetoric in his 2016 campaign was grounded in populist rhetoric - he even called for raising taxes on the rich. When it came down to the actual policy, however, it ended up being just that - rhetoric.","human_ref_B":">more socialized healthcare system   Highly suggest a single payer rather then socialized system. Big difference. Both are forms of universal public healthcare. South Korea and Canada use a single payer system, where the goverent acts as a single  insurance provider. The UK's NHS is an example of a truly socialized healthcare system, where doctors are salaried employees of the state, and hospitals, etc are government owned. Likely the latter is more cost effective in the long run, but the transition would be ***VERY*** rough. With a single payer system, the government steps in as the insurer. Much easier; its how the transition worked in Canada.   >an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements.   Some free trade agreements like NAFTA\/USMCA are a benefit to the US, and represent 30% of your overall worldwide trade. Making blanket statements about all free trade deals isn't necessarily a great idea. Some can be good, others bad. I would suggest a case-by-case basis.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":614.0,"score_ratio":7.25}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxufycw","c_root_id_B":"fxuhm6e","created_at_utc_A":1594574096,"created_at_utc_B":1594574933,"score_A":3,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"Isn't that basically the Bernie campaign, which had a decent amount of steam earlier in this election cycle and, depending on who you ask, was unable to take advantage of its young grassroots support and translate it to votes, or was sabotaged by the more pro-corporate, pro-status-quo, pro-foreign-intervention arm of the Democratic party? This is a party that's already largely on-board with trans rights, abortion rights, etc, so you'd think that a candidate pushing for both sets of policies would at least reach the general election.  Like we can say America needs x, but when America is presented with x and rejects it, what do we make of it?","human_ref_B":"The issue with unified left- and right-wing populism that completely ignores cultural discourse is that although both sides may end up agreeing on the *problems*, there still lies a significant gap to bridge with regards to the *solutions*.   The Nazis, for example, were environmentalists. Instead of increasing regulation of industry, as most liberals\/leftists would advocate, they laid the blame on Jews, Poles, and other minorities. It's debatable whether they truly even believed in environmentalism, or if they were just using it as a thinly-veiled excuse for their bigotry.   Another thing is there is no guarantee that both sides will work together long enough for actual progress to be made. Trump's rhetoric in his 2016 campaign was grounded in populist rhetoric - he even called for raising taxes on the rich. When it came down to the actual policy, however, it ended up being just that - rhetoric.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":837.0,"score_ratio":9.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxug2av","c_root_id_B":"fxufycw","created_at_utc_A":1594574151,"created_at_utc_B":1594574096,"score_A":13,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The problem is that wedge issues aren't wedge issues because every politician necessarily makes them a big issue of their campaign. They're wedge issues because they're easily deployed against your opponents and everyone is required to have an opinion on them. Your centrist-populist party guy can run on those popular issues but he's going to be asked about abortion and gun control and trans rights. And the \"Mr. Populist won't say his opinion on abortion\" headline is worse than just saying an opinion on the issue.","human_ref_B":"Isn't that basically the Bernie campaign, which had a decent amount of steam earlier in this election cycle and, depending on who you ask, was unable to take advantage of its young grassroots support and translate it to votes, or was sabotaged by the more pro-corporate, pro-status-quo, pro-foreign-intervention arm of the Democratic party? This is a party that's already largely on-board with trans rights, abortion rights, etc, so you'd think that a candidate pushing for both sets of policies would at least reach the general election.  Like we can say America needs x, but when America is presented with x and rejects it, what do we make of it?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":55.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxug3wl","c_root_id_B":"fxufycw","created_at_utc_A":1594574174,"created_at_utc_B":1594574096,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements.   In your opinion, why do Republican voters consistently vote against these interests and decry them as \"socalism\" and \"facism\" despite most certainly being captured in the statistics you mention?","human_ref_B":"Isn't that basically the Bernie campaign, which had a decent amount of steam earlier in this election cycle and, depending on who you ask, was unable to take advantage of its young grassroots support and translate it to votes, or was sabotaged by the more pro-corporate, pro-status-quo, pro-foreign-intervention arm of the Democratic party? This is a party that's already largely on-board with trans rights, abortion rights, etc, so you'd think that a candidate pushing for both sets of policies would at least reach the general election.  Like we can say America needs x, but when America is presented with x and rejects it, what do we make of it?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":78.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxufycw","c_root_id_B":"fxugp7t","created_at_utc_A":1594574096,"created_at_utc_B":1594574476,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Isn't that basically the Bernie campaign, which had a decent amount of steam earlier in this election cycle and, depending on who you ask, was unable to take advantage of its young grassroots support and translate it to votes, or was sabotaged by the more pro-corporate, pro-status-quo, pro-foreign-intervention arm of the Democratic party? This is a party that's already largely on-board with trans rights, abortion rights, etc, so you'd think that a candidate pushing for both sets of policies would at least reach the general election.  Like we can say America needs x, but when America is presented with x and rejects it, what do we make of it?","human_ref_B":"The issue is that people who \"support\" these things don't always support the necessary changes to society. There is no widely agreed upon political and economic reform. People are losing their minds over having to wear a facemask. The centrism approach of \"both sides\" is a fever dream at best. At worst it ignores the plights of the average American as something solvable by just getting along.   Defunding the police is a great example. Entertaining the idea is considered fringe with zero budge for listening to alternative solutions. That's not something that a populist agenda would solve. Rather it'd be perpetuated behind discussion, bureaucracy, etc. Meanwhile law enforcement would still have relatively unchecked lethal power.  We all want to believe that there's a central majority that just wants the best. That's just not the case. What people want is to feel good about supporting social safety nets while not actually wanting their lives interrupted. They want to say black lives matter but aren't willing to change the status quo to achieve it. It's not out of evil, it's out of apathy. Maybe they cared once but have become complacent and apathetic towards the harsh realities faced by others.  Appealing to the masses would, in my opinion, just cause stagnation through deliberation. If a person is going to support those necessary changes it's going to come at the cost of approval on other things or by specific demographics. Prioritizing the importance of the change is more crucial than waiting for everyone to get on board with the idea.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":380.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxufycw","c_root_id_B":"fxuge2r","created_at_utc_A":1594574096,"created_at_utc_B":1594574319,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Isn't that basically the Bernie campaign, which had a decent amount of steam earlier in this election cycle and, depending on who you ask, was unable to take advantage of its young grassroots support and translate it to votes, or was sabotaged by the more pro-corporate, pro-status-quo, pro-foreign-intervention arm of the Democratic party? This is a party that's already largely on-board with trans rights, abortion rights, etc, so you'd think that a candidate pushing for both sets of policies would at least reach the general election.  Like we can say America needs x, but when America is presented with x and rejects it, what do we make of it?","human_ref_B":">more socialized healthcare system   Highly suggest a single payer rather then socialized system. Big difference. Both are forms of universal public healthcare. South Korea and Canada use a single payer system, where the goverent acts as a single  insurance provider. The UK's NHS is an example of a truly socialized healthcare system, where doctors are salaried employees of the state, and hospitals, etc are government owned. Likely the latter is more cost effective in the long run, but the transition would be ***VERY*** rough. With a single payer system, the government steps in as the insurer. Much easier; its how the transition worked in Canada.   >an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements.   Some free trade agreements like NAFTA\/USMCA are a benefit to the US, and represent 30% of your overall worldwide trade. Making blanket statements about all free trade deals isn't necessarily a great idea. Some can be good, others bad. I would suggest a case-by-case basis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":223.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxukqkg","c_root_id_B":"fxul2i8","created_at_utc_A":1594576536,"created_at_utc_B":1594576711,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Bernie Sanders ran on desperately not trying to acknowledge \"wedge\" issues, and he was stomped twice. Fact of the matter is that those wedge issues that you want to brush aside are important to people. People care about their bodily autonomy, or about their religious views, or their rights, or their safety, or about not being discriminated against, and so on.  Anyone attempting to appeal to the supposedly universal beliefs for economic and political reform is pretty much guaranteed to lose because all those supporters also care about those damn wedge issues too. And they're probably going to go with the politicians that support the reforms and those wedge issues over the ones that plug their ears and try to pretend they don't exist.","human_ref_B":"Obama and Clinton both pushed universal health care as far as congress would allow and then suffered huge losses in the mid terms. People say they want change in polls, but everyone has a different idea of what the right change is, so when a particular policy is adopted there is a backlash.   The fact that we have a 2 party system is a huge part of the problem- to get back into power, the minority power has a singular goal of making the majority party look bad. Another factor is that economic changes with winners also produce losers, and psychologically people react much more strongly to losses than gains.  My favorite example is taxes- the IRS could do your taxes for you, as in every other first world nation. You would just sign a piece of paper saying \u201clooks good\u201d or you could contest the tax. It would save huge amounts of time and money and help the IRS tremendously. This rule change has been tried many times, but republicans want taxes to be as painful as possible and h&r block spends vast sums of money propping up the current system. The end result is no changes, even though such a change has near universal support among tax payers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":175.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxukqkg","c_root_id_B":"fxuoh4c","created_at_utc_A":1594576536,"created_at_utc_B":1594578503,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Bernie Sanders ran on desperately not trying to acknowledge \"wedge\" issues, and he was stomped twice. Fact of the matter is that those wedge issues that you want to brush aside are important to people. People care about their bodily autonomy, or about their religious views, or their rights, or their safety, or about not being discriminated against, and so on.  Anyone attempting to appeal to the supposedly universal beliefs for economic and political reform is pretty much guaranteed to lose because all those supporters also care about those damn wedge issues too. And they're probably going to go with the politicians that support the reforms and those wedge issues over the ones that plug their ears and try to pretend they don't exist.","human_ref_B":"Populism is not the answer to these problems. Populism is, distinctly, an appeal to \"the people\" that is, under the hood, implicitly or explicitly slicing up the population into who qualifies as the \"true people\" and the not. Populism always passes judgment onto \"the elites\" while claiming to represent \"the people,\" but what classifies as the elite and the people necessarily depends on the populist in charge. Often, the populist is correct in identifying a group of \"elites\" that has considerable power over \"the people,\" e.g. Bernie Sanders' declaration of Wall St. banker types spitting down on the likes of all else, and powerful corporate interests pulling the political strings. But necessarily, even a \"correct\" identification of \"the elites\" denigrates the humans that comprise this group to being \"enemies\" of the state  of a biblical nature, and often casts a blind eye to thoughts of violence against these groups, or actively encourages it. Populists draw all of the peoples' woes back to these elites, and argue that the solution to all problems, and the way forward, is the defeat of these elites, which the populist promises to bring.  The problem is twofold: one, as previously mentioned, the definition of who counts as \"the elites\" and \"the people\" can shift even within a single populist's regime, and judgment passed by mob rule is often wrong, despite \"mass appeal\" flirting with our democratic instincts. If populists were in control of everything in the 80s, mass appeal would dictate that \"the people\" want gay marriage to be illegal. That was in fact the case in most places. It's easy to enjoy the idea that \"the people\" decide things, e.g. with a popular vote, when that popular vote aligns with what you want. Assuming you're progressive, you are pleased to see that progressive opinions are becoming more commonplace as you pointed out. But it is not the popularity of opinion that makes it right, unless 2020 is the year that we suddenly know the right way to do everything. Agreeing on a definition of who are \"the elites\" and who are \"the people\" necessarily requires divisiveness, and while we may be bang on the money in 2020 as to who the elites are, there's no guarantee that it stays this way, and to subject ourselves to a system of always fighting whoever \"the elites\" are is a dangerous path.  Second, political candidates require divisiveness to distinguish themselves for voters. If it's true that 100% of people agree with higher minimum wages, then campaigning on increasing the minimum wage is an ineffective campaign. Due in large part to the media focusing on a handful of easy-to-digest social issues, polarization is at a peak; the idea of a \"conservative democrat\" or a \"liberal republican\" is so far gone that the terms are nearly considered oxymoronic by most. Democrats by and large support increasing the minimum wage, while many republicans do not. You say some things have \"wide support\" by the \"general populace.\" By \"wide support\" I assume you mean >50% (most generous definition I guess), and by \"general populace\" I assume you mean both sides of the aisle. On some things you say has \"wide support\":  * On socialized healthcare: 60% of Americans say it's the governments responsibility to ensure healthcare coverage. Of the projected 253,768,092 American adults in 2018, to act on this \"widely supported\" opinion immediately would invalidate the opinion of roughly 101 million Americans. It's a partisan issue: 80% of democrats and 28% of republicans favor it. * On \"electoral reform\": the concept as stated is vague. Many Americans are probably unhappy with elections that don't elect their candidate. Ignoring that, let's assume you meant popular vote. 58% of Americans want popular vote to replace the electoral college. It's a partisan issue: 81% of democrats and 32% of republicans favor it. * On free trade: actually, 56% of Americans view free trade as a good thing (in 2018). It's *somewhat* a partisan issue: 67% of democrats and 43% of republicans favor free trade. * On the minimum wage increase: 67% of Americans favor an increase in the minimum wage. It's a partisan issue: 86% of democrats and 43% of republicans favor it.  In all of these cases, the democrats and republicans differ in what side of the argument receives their \"wide support.\" The issues you mention in general remain divisive along party lines, not to mention the slough of social issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage) across which there is also disagreement. The problem is that these issues don't have widespread agreement; they are highly partisan.  If republicans are some populist's \"elites,\" then it is easy to declare to your \"the people\" that these elites must be taken down; on social issues I agree (me being pro-choice, pro-marry-who-the-fuck-you-want). But surely you see that it's difficult and dangerous to invalidate 100 million Americans' opinions on things like how healthcare could be handled: there are some very strong arguments against socialized healthcare, as well as for; it's not one sided. Electoral reform: popular vote has a billion and one issues; of the 5 elections in which the popular vote-winner lost the electoral college, 5 were democrats, so it seems natural that democrats would like a popular vote, and it would be easy to shroud their justification for it in some righteous pursuit of the will of \"the people\" while totally forgetting the reasons we don't use a popular vote. Free trade: it actually has majority support, rather than protectionism as you suggest, and it's the least partisan issue you cited. Minimum wage increase: this has deleterious effects in rural areas, and the minimum wage can crowd out certain individuals who would otherwise not earn employment, threaten small business ventures, and further push for automation (when our government clearly is not ready to deal with its ramifications). I'm not saying the republican side of these issues is right; I'm just trying to advocate for the fact that it's not as simple as \"well, democrats want it, republicans don't, but 60% of Americans do on average and republicans are dumb, so screw it let's do it.\"  I think instead of having a populist movement, you need popul*ar* candidates who push for the issues you want to see. Democratic candidates by and large do this because these issues are partisan and their voters want it. Republican candidates by and large do not do this because these issues are partisan and their voters don't want it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1967.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxufycw","c_root_id_B":"fxul2i8","created_at_utc_A":1594574096,"created_at_utc_B":1594576711,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Isn't that basically the Bernie campaign, which had a decent amount of steam earlier in this election cycle and, depending on who you ask, was unable to take advantage of its young grassroots support and translate it to votes, or was sabotaged by the more pro-corporate, pro-status-quo, pro-foreign-intervention arm of the Democratic party? This is a party that's already largely on-board with trans rights, abortion rights, etc, so you'd think that a candidate pushing for both sets of policies would at least reach the general election.  Like we can say America needs x, but when America is presented with x and rejects it, what do we make of it?","human_ref_B":"Obama and Clinton both pushed universal health care as far as congress would allow and then suffered huge losses in the mid terms. People say they want change in polls, but everyone has a different idea of what the right change is, so when a particular policy is adopted there is a backlash.   The fact that we have a 2 party system is a huge part of the problem- to get back into power, the minority power has a singular goal of making the majority party look bad. Another factor is that economic changes with winners also produce losers, and psychologically people react much more strongly to losses than gains.  My favorite example is taxes- the IRS could do your taxes for you, as in every other first world nation. You would just sign a piece of paper saying \u201clooks good\u201d or you could contest the tax. It would save huge amounts of time and money and help the IRS tremendously. This rule change has been tried many times, but republicans want taxes to be as painful as possible and h&r block spends vast sums of money propping up the current system. The end result is no changes, even though such a change has near universal support among tax payers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2615.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxufycw","c_root_id_B":"fxuoh4c","created_at_utc_A":1594574096,"created_at_utc_B":1594578503,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Isn't that basically the Bernie campaign, which had a decent amount of steam earlier in this election cycle and, depending on who you ask, was unable to take advantage of its young grassroots support and translate it to votes, or was sabotaged by the more pro-corporate, pro-status-quo, pro-foreign-intervention arm of the Democratic party? This is a party that's already largely on-board with trans rights, abortion rights, etc, so you'd think that a candidate pushing for both sets of policies would at least reach the general election.  Like we can say America needs x, but when America is presented with x and rejects it, what do we make of it?","human_ref_B":"Populism is not the answer to these problems. Populism is, distinctly, an appeal to \"the people\" that is, under the hood, implicitly or explicitly slicing up the population into who qualifies as the \"true people\" and the not. Populism always passes judgment onto \"the elites\" while claiming to represent \"the people,\" but what classifies as the elite and the people necessarily depends on the populist in charge. Often, the populist is correct in identifying a group of \"elites\" that has considerable power over \"the people,\" e.g. Bernie Sanders' declaration of Wall St. banker types spitting down on the likes of all else, and powerful corporate interests pulling the political strings. But necessarily, even a \"correct\" identification of \"the elites\" denigrates the humans that comprise this group to being \"enemies\" of the state  of a biblical nature, and often casts a blind eye to thoughts of violence against these groups, or actively encourages it. Populists draw all of the peoples' woes back to these elites, and argue that the solution to all problems, and the way forward, is the defeat of these elites, which the populist promises to bring.  The problem is twofold: one, as previously mentioned, the definition of who counts as \"the elites\" and \"the people\" can shift even within a single populist's regime, and judgment passed by mob rule is often wrong, despite \"mass appeal\" flirting with our democratic instincts. If populists were in control of everything in the 80s, mass appeal would dictate that \"the people\" want gay marriage to be illegal. That was in fact the case in most places. It's easy to enjoy the idea that \"the people\" decide things, e.g. with a popular vote, when that popular vote aligns with what you want. Assuming you're progressive, you are pleased to see that progressive opinions are becoming more commonplace as you pointed out. But it is not the popularity of opinion that makes it right, unless 2020 is the year that we suddenly know the right way to do everything. Agreeing on a definition of who are \"the elites\" and who are \"the people\" necessarily requires divisiveness, and while we may be bang on the money in 2020 as to who the elites are, there's no guarantee that it stays this way, and to subject ourselves to a system of always fighting whoever \"the elites\" are is a dangerous path.  Second, political candidates require divisiveness to distinguish themselves for voters. If it's true that 100% of people agree with higher minimum wages, then campaigning on increasing the minimum wage is an ineffective campaign. Due in large part to the media focusing on a handful of easy-to-digest social issues, polarization is at a peak; the idea of a \"conservative democrat\" or a \"liberal republican\" is so far gone that the terms are nearly considered oxymoronic by most. Democrats by and large support increasing the minimum wage, while many republicans do not. You say some things have \"wide support\" by the \"general populace.\" By \"wide support\" I assume you mean >50% (most generous definition I guess), and by \"general populace\" I assume you mean both sides of the aisle. On some things you say has \"wide support\":  * On socialized healthcare: 60% of Americans say it's the governments responsibility to ensure healthcare coverage. Of the projected 253,768,092 American adults in 2018, to act on this \"widely supported\" opinion immediately would invalidate the opinion of roughly 101 million Americans. It's a partisan issue: 80% of democrats and 28% of republicans favor it. * On \"electoral reform\": the concept as stated is vague. Many Americans are probably unhappy with elections that don't elect their candidate. Ignoring that, let's assume you meant popular vote. 58% of Americans want popular vote to replace the electoral college. It's a partisan issue: 81% of democrats and 32% of republicans favor it. * On free trade: actually, 56% of Americans view free trade as a good thing (in 2018). It's *somewhat* a partisan issue: 67% of democrats and 43% of republicans favor free trade. * On the minimum wage increase: 67% of Americans favor an increase in the minimum wage. It's a partisan issue: 86% of democrats and 43% of republicans favor it.  In all of these cases, the democrats and republicans differ in what side of the argument receives their \"wide support.\" The issues you mention in general remain divisive along party lines, not to mention the slough of social issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage) across which there is also disagreement. The problem is that these issues don't have widespread agreement; they are highly partisan.  If republicans are some populist's \"elites,\" then it is easy to declare to your \"the people\" that these elites must be taken down; on social issues I agree (me being pro-choice, pro-marry-who-the-fuck-you-want). But surely you see that it's difficult and dangerous to invalidate 100 million Americans' opinions on things like how healthcare could be handled: there are some very strong arguments against socialized healthcare, as well as for; it's not one sided. Electoral reform: popular vote has a billion and one issues; of the 5 elections in which the popular vote-winner lost the electoral college, 5 were democrats, so it seems natural that democrats would like a popular vote, and it would be easy to shroud their justification for it in some righteous pursuit of the will of \"the people\" while totally forgetting the reasons we don't use a popular vote. Free trade: it actually has majority support, rather than protectionism as you suggest, and it's the least partisan issue you cited. Minimum wage increase: this has deleterious effects in rural areas, and the minimum wage can crowd out certain individuals who would otherwise not earn employment, threaten small business ventures, and further push for automation (when our government clearly is not ready to deal with its ramifications). I'm not saying the republican side of these issues is right; I'm just trying to advocate for the fact that it's not as simple as \"well, democrats want it, republicans don't, but 60% of Americans do on average and republicans are dumb, so screw it let's do it.\"  I think instead of having a populist movement, you need popul*ar* candidates who push for the issues you want to see. Democratic candidates by and large do this because these issues are partisan and their voters want it. Republican candidates by and large do not do this because these issues are partisan and their voters don't want it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4407.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxuoh4c","c_root_id_B":"fxum21s","created_at_utc_A":1594578503,"created_at_utc_B":1594577229,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Populism is not the answer to these problems. Populism is, distinctly, an appeal to \"the people\" that is, under the hood, implicitly or explicitly slicing up the population into who qualifies as the \"true people\" and the not. Populism always passes judgment onto \"the elites\" while claiming to represent \"the people,\" but what classifies as the elite and the people necessarily depends on the populist in charge. Often, the populist is correct in identifying a group of \"elites\" that has considerable power over \"the people,\" e.g. Bernie Sanders' declaration of Wall St. banker types spitting down on the likes of all else, and powerful corporate interests pulling the political strings. But necessarily, even a \"correct\" identification of \"the elites\" denigrates the humans that comprise this group to being \"enemies\" of the state  of a biblical nature, and often casts a blind eye to thoughts of violence against these groups, or actively encourages it. Populists draw all of the peoples' woes back to these elites, and argue that the solution to all problems, and the way forward, is the defeat of these elites, which the populist promises to bring.  The problem is twofold: one, as previously mentioned, the definition of who counts as \"the elites\" and \"the people\" can shift even within a single populist's regime, and judgment passed by mob rule is often wrong, despite \"mass appeal\" flirting with our democratic instincts. If populists were in control of everything in the 80s, mass appeal would dictate that \"the people\" want gay marriage to be illegal. That was in fact the case in most places. It's easy to enjoy the idea that \"the people\" decide things, e.g. with a popular vote, when that popular vote aligns with what you want. Assuming you're progressive, you are pleased to see that progressive opinions are becoming more commonplace as you pointed out. But it is not the popularity of opinion that makes it right, unless 2020 is the year that we suddenly know the right way to do everything. Agreeing on a definition of who are \"the elites\" and who are \"the people\" necessarily requires divisiveness, and while we may be bang on the money in 2020 as to who the elites are, there's no guarantee that it stays this way, and to subject ourselves to a system of always fighting whoever \"the elites\" are is a dangerous path.  Second, political candidates require divisiveness to distinguish themselves for voters. If it's true that 100% of people agree with higher minimum wages, then campaigning on increasing the minimum wage is an ineffective campaign. Due in large part to the media focusing on a handful of easy-to-digest social issues, polarization is at a peak; the idea of a \"conservative democrat\" or a \"liberal republican\" is so far gone that the terms are nearly considered oxymoronic by most. Democrats by and large support increasing the minimum wage, while many republicans do not. You say some things have \"wide support\" by the \"general populace.\" By \"wide support\" I assume you mean >50% (most generous definition I guess), and by \"general populace\" I assume you mean both sides of the aisle. On some things you say has \"wide support\":  * On socialized healthcare: 60% of Americans say it's the governments responsibility to ensure healthcare coverage. Of the projected 253,768,092 American adults in 2018, to act on this \"widely supported\" opinion immediately would invalidate the opinion of roughly 101 million Americans. It's a partisan issue: 80% of democrats and 28% of republicans favor it. * On \"electoral reform\": the concept as stated is vague. Many Americans are probably unhappy with elections that don't elect their candidate. Ignoring that, let's assume you meant popular vote. 58% of Americans want popular vote to replace the electoral college. It's a partisan issue: 81% of democrats and 32% of republicans favor it. * On free trade: actually, 56% of Americans view free trade as a good thing (in 2018). It's *somewhat* a partisan issue: 67% of democrats and 43% of republicans favor free trade. * On the minimum wage increase: 67% of Americans favor an increase in the minimum wage. It's a partisan issue: 86% of democrats and 43% of republicans favor it.  In all of these cases, the democrats and republicans differ in what side of the argument receives their \"wide support.\" The issues you mention in general remain divisive along party lines, not to mention the slough of social issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage) across which there is also disagreement. The problem is that these issues don't have widespread agreement; they are highly partisan.  If republicans are some populist's \"elites,\" then it is easy to declare to your \"the people\" that these elites must be taken down; on social issues I agree (me being pro-choice, pro-marry-who-the-fuck-you-want). But surely you see that it's difficult and dangerous to invalidate 100 million Americans' opinions on things like how healthcare could be handled: there are some very strong arguments against socialized healthcare, as well as for; it's not one sided. Electoral reform: popular vote has a billion and one issues; of the 5 elections in which the popular vote-winner lost the electoral college, 5 were democrats, so it seems natural that democrats would like a popular vote, and it would be easy to shroud their justification for it in some righteous pursuit of the will of \"the people\" while totally forgetting the reasons we don't use a popular vote. Free trade: it actually has majority support, rather than protectionism as you suggest, and it's the least partisan issue you cited. Minimum wage increase: this has deleterious effects in rural areas, and the minimum wage can crowd out certain individuals who would otherwise not earn employment, threaten small business ventures, and further push for automation (when our government clearly is not ready to deal with its ramifications). I'm not saying the republican side of these issues is right; I'm just trying to advocate for the fact that it's not as simple as \"well, democrats want it, republicans don't, but 60% of Americans do on average and republicans are dumb, so screw it let's do it.\"  I think instead of having a populist movement, you need popul*ar* candidates who push for the issues you want to see. Democratic candidates by and large do this because these issues are partisan and their voters want it. Republican candidates by and large do not do this because these issues are partisan and their voters don't want it.","human_ref_B":"Calling it a \u201cpopulist\u201d campaign is probably a wedge issue itself. Instead perhaps just say we need to focus on the economic and political reforms we all agree on?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1274.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxunzho","c_root_id_B":"fxuoh4c","created_at_utc_A":1594578251,"created_at_utc_B":1594578503,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Polling over 50 percent doesn't necessarily mean, \"widely agreed upon\". Also, just because you believe some of those things, that doesn't mean you agree with all of those things. Last, all of those points are highly politically fraught. These are all wedge issues in their own right. If I were to list wedge issues, these would all make my list, alongside all the classics such as abortion, race, policing, feminism, etc.","human_ref_B":"Populism is not the answer to these problems. Populism is, distinctly, an appeal to \"the people\" that is, under the hood, implicitly or explicitly slicing up the population into who qualifies as the \"true people\" and the not. Populism always passes judgment onto \"the elites\" while claiming to represent \"the people,\" but what classifies as the elite and the people necessarily depends on the populist in charge. Often, the populist is correct in identifying a group of \"elites\" that has considerable power over \"the people,\" e.g. Bernie Sanders' declaration of Wall St. banker types spitting down on the likes of all else, and powerful corporate interests pulling the political strings. But necessarily, even a \"correct\" identification of \"the elites\" denigrates the humans that comprise this group to being \"enemies\" of the state  of a biblical nature, and often casts a blind eye to thoughts of violence against these groups, or actively encourages it. Populists draw all of the peoples' woes back to these elites, and argue that the solution to all problems, and the way forward, is the defeat of these elites, which the populist promises to bring.  The problem is twofold: one, as previously mentioned, the definition of who counts as \"the elites\" and \"the people\" can shift even within a single populist's regime, and judgment passed by mob rule is often wrong, despite \"mass appeal\" flirting with our democratic instincts. If populists were in control of everything in the 80s, mass appeal would dictate that \"the people\" want gay marriage to be illegal. That was in fact the case in most places. It's easy to enjoy the idea that \"the people\" decide things, e.g. with a popular vote, when that popular vote aligns with what you want. Assuming you're progressive, you are pleased to see that progressive opinions are becoming more commonplace as you pointed out. But it is not the popularity of opinion that makes it right, unless 2020 is the year that we suddenly know the right way to do everything. Agreeing on a definition of who are \"the elites\" and who are \"the people\" necessarily requires divisiveness, and while we may be bang on the money in 2020 as to who the elites are, there's no guarantee that it stays this way, and to subject ourselves to a system of always fighting whoever \"the elites\" are is a dangerous path.  Second, political candidates require divisiveness to distinguish themselves for voters. If it's true that 100% of people agree with higher minimum wages, then campaigning on increasing the minimum wage is an ineffective campaign. Due in large part to the media focusing on a handful of easy-to-digest social issues, polarization is at a peak; the idea of a \"conservative democrat\" or a \"liberal republican\" is so far gone that the terms are nearly considered oxymoronic by most. Democrats by and large support increasing the minimum wage, while many republicans do not. You say some things have \"wide support\" by the \"general populace.\" By \"wide support\" I assume you mean >50% (most generous definition I guess), and by \"general populace\" I assume you mean both sides of the aisle. On some things you say has \"wide support\":  * On socialized healthcare: 60% of Americans say it's the governments responsibility to ensure healthcare coverage. Of the projected 253,768,092 American adults in 2018, to act on this \"widely supported\" opinion immediately would invalidate the opinion of roughly 101 million Americans. It's a partisan issue: 80% of democrats and 28% of republicans favor it. * On \"electoral reform\": the concept as stated is vague. Many Americans are probably unhappy with elections that don't elect their candidate. Ignoring that, let's assume you meant popular vote. 58% of Americans want popular vote to replace the electoral college. It's a partisan issue: 81% of democrats and 32% of republicans favor it. * On free trade: actually, 56% of Americans view free trade as a good thing (in 2018). It's *somewhat* a partisan issue: 67% of democrats and 43% of republicans favor free trade. * On the minimum wage increase: 67% of Americans favor an increase in the minimum wage. It's a partisan issue: 86% of democrats and 43% of republicans favor it.  In all of these cases, the democrats and republicans differ in what side of the argument receives their \"wide support.\" The issues you mention in general remain divisive along party lines, not to mention the slough of social issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage) across which there is also disagreement. The problem is that these issues don't have widespread agreement; they are highly partisan.  If republicans are some populist's \"elites,\" then it is easy to declare to your \"the people\" that these elites must be taken down; on social issues I agree (me being pro-choice, pro-marry-who-the-fuck-you-want). But surely you see that it's difficult and dangerous to invalidate 100 million Americans' opinions on things like how healthcare could be handled: there are some very strong arguments against socialized healthcare, as well as for; it's not one sided. Electoral reform: popular vote has a billion and one issues; of the 5 elections in which the popular vote-winner lost the electoral college, 5 were democrats, so it seems natural that democrats would like a popular vote, and it would be easy to shroud their justification for it in some righteous pursuit of the will of \"the people\" while totally forgetting the reasons we don't use a popular vote. Free trade: it actually has majority support, rather than protectionism as you suggest, and it's the least partisan issue you cited. Minimum wage increase: this has deleterious effects in rural areas, and the minimum wage can crowd out certain individuals who would otherwise not earn employment, threaten small business ventures, and further push for automation (when our government clearly is not ready to deal with its ramifications). I'm not saying the republican side of these issues is right; I'm just trying to advocate for the fact that it's not as simple as \"well, democrats want it, republicans don't, but 60% of Americans do on average and republicans are dumb, so screw it let's do it.\"  I think instead of having a populist movement, you need popul*ar* candidates who push for the issues you want to see. Democratic candidates by and large do this because these issues are partisan and their voters want it. Republican candidates by and large do not do this because these issues are partisan and their voters don't want it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":252.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxunzho","c_root_id_B":"fxur0rz","created_at_utc_A":1594578251,"created_at_utc_B":1594579834,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Polling over 50 percent doesn't necessarily mean, \"widely agreed upon\". Also, just because you believe some of those things, that doesn't mean you agree with all of those things. Last, all of those points are highly politically fraught. These are all wedge issues in their own right. If I were to list wedge issues, these would all make my list, alongside all the classics such as abortion, race, policing, feminism, etc.","human_ref_B":"> people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically  the problem is, you aren't the only one capable of building a coalition.  i'll give a historical example.  Poor southern whites, for the most part, strongly supported FDR's new deal.  Northern Republicans opposed FDR's new deal.  But, poor rural southern whites opposed integration.  Some of both of these groups realized an opportunity in a common ideology in opposing both federal interventions for integration and federal interventions on behalf of the poor.  Arguing that we should can unite by avoiding the \"wedge issues' ignores the extent that these wedge issues are often a priority.  People who see abortion as murder, even if they want universal healthcare, might care more about abortion.  People who believe that police are killing Black people without any accountability might feel that's a more important issue that universal healthcare.  ignoring the \"wedge issues\" and the \"culture wars' that you view as \"subjective\" and care less about doesn't necessarily win over the people for which these issues are incredibly important.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1583.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxunzho","c_root_id_B":"fxuxllr","created_at_utc_A":1594578251,"created_at_utc_B":1594583351,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Polling over 50 percent doesn't necessarily mean, \"widely agreed upon\". Also, just because you believe some of those things, that doesn't mean you agree with all of those things. Last, all of those points are highly politically fraught. These are all wedge issues in their own right. If I were to list wedge issues, these would all make my list, alongside all the classics such as abortion, race, policing, feminism, etc.","human_ref_B":"The only reform we need is less taxes and less regulation so businesses can grow","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5100.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxvlqg7","c_root_id_B":"fxunzho","created_at_utc_A":1594596709,"created_at_utc_B":1594578251,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm gonna try a different line of argument here.   Populism is bad. Democracy is a fantastic check on power, but a terrible form of policy decision making. I'm gonna use this example  >an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements  to prove it.  Ending free trade goes against basic economics. Like literally economics 101 - first lesson you'll learn free trade is good. None but the most fringe economists support restrictions on trade. This is not a valid political opinion anymore than saying we should reduce vaccines is if most people became anti-vaxxers. Following the populist rhetoric here would be bad, period.  More than that though, using the population as a source of good policy is fundamentally flawed. Most people don't have the education to really engage in democracy. That's not to say I think they shouldn't, or some moral qualm with them, but simply that it takes a large time investment to become semi-literate on law, economics and politics. This means that if someone \"excites\" the broader coalition, what they're saying isn't a complex treatise on how to fix our issues, but someone with an easily digestible message that people have a gut feeling is right. This is not how smart policy is made or agreed upon.","human_ref_B":"Polling over 50 percent doesn't necessarily mean, \"widely agreed upon\". Also, just because you believe some of those things, that doesn't mean you agree with all of those things. Last, all of those points are highly politically fraught. These are all wedge issues in their own right. If I were to list wedge issues, these would all make my list, alongside all the classics such as abortion, race, policing, feminism, etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18458.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxvugyj","c_root_id_B":"fxunzho","created_at_utc_A":1594602023,"created_at_utc_B":1594578251,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You just described the Democratic party\u2019s platform...","human_ref_B":"Polling over 50 percent doesn't necessarily mean, \"widely agreed upon\". Also, just because you believe some of those things, that doesn't mean you agree with all of those things. Last, all of those points are highly politically fraught. These are all wedge issues in their own right. If I were to list wedge issues, these would all make my list, alongside all the classics such as abortion, race, policing, feminism, etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23772.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hpxtr9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace  and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.","c_root_id_A":"fxvugyj","c_root_id_B":"fxvoc1v","created_at_utc_A":1594602023,"created_at_utc_B":1594598267,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You just described the Democratic party\u2019s platform...","human_ref_B":"I don't think most people actually know what all of what you said means.   Are they walking through the trade offs?  The costs.  Or just the headlines?  Healthcare for example, I work in healthcare in Canada.    Do you want our system?  Do you need surgery due to hemroids?  You are waiting 2-2.5 years in Canada.  In the USA 2 weeks.  Hip replacments, cataracts,  knee surgeries similar differences.     Do people want socialized health care, or better health care?  Or cheaper healthcare.  The world socialized healthcare has become a catch all.  Do you want Frances system or Canada's?  In France 75 % of people carry some sort of private health insurance, even though most costs are paid by goverment.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3756.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"fof2q9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: r\/FemaleDatingStrategy is a toxic, hateful sub filled with bad advice and shouldn't be viewed as a positive community on reddit. I'm writing this because while in my experience condemnation of or at least acknowledgement of the toxicity, hatefulness, and bad advice-full-ness of \"manosphere\" subs or communities focused around The Red Pill, Pick Up Artistry, or Men Going Their Own Way is nearly universal among people who are not in those communities, I have seen a fair number of people who are not r\/FemaleDatingStrategy users come to the defense of FDS with comments like \"oh they're just focused on helping women not get taken advantage of and ensuring they get the most out of dating, there's nothing wrong with that!\"  This kind of positive outsider view of FDS culminated in an article the Wall Street Journal published about FDS in which they praised the sub for offering \"actually practical advice in the age of dating apps,\" because \"Today\u2019s Tinderella must swipe through a lot of ugly profiles to find her prince,\" and claiming that \"The strategies that FDSers endorse, particularly for online dating, are backed by scientific research\" and concluding that \"If love is a battlefield, communities like Female Dating Strategy are trying to better arm some of the combatants.\"  I find it very hard to believe that a major publication like the WSJ would ever publish a favorable piece about a community like PUA or TRP the way they did for FDS. I looked. I found a bunch of major publications who dove into why PUA, TRP, and MGTOW are toxic, hateful, and filled with bad advice, but none praising them. This double standard maintained by many redditors and apparently by the writers for major news outlets in condemning TRP-like communities but not their female equivalents is, more than anything, what prompted me to make this post. It also means that if your counterargument is anything like \"well but TRP is toxic!\" it will not change my view on anything, because I agree with that already.  To the meat of why FDS is toxic, hateful, and filled with bad advice:  First it's worth looking at who uses FDS. According to subredditstats.com, r\/GenderCritical, reddit's largets TERF subreddit, has a user overlap of 151 with FDS, and is ranked as the most similar sub; r\/PinkpillFeminism, arguably reddit's largest and most overt misandristic subreddit, has a user overlap of 482 with FDS, and is also ranked as the most similar subreddit to it. In short, TERFs and misandrists are respectively 151 and 482 times more likely than the average reddit user to frequent FDS; FDS is, therefore, largely populated with transphobes (note it is \"female\" dating strategy, not \"womens\" dating strategy) and man-haters.  As for hatefulness, FDS maintains a host of dehumanizing terms for men, the most popular of which is \"moid,\" meaning a \"man like humanoid,\" meaning, \"something male but not entirely human.\" Another favorite is \"scrote,\" obviously referring to and reducing men down to their testicles, which can be seen in popular FDS flairs like \"The Scrotation,\" or \"Roast-A-Scrote\" or \"Scrotes Mad.\" Finally, \"Low Value Male\" (LVM) and \"High Value Male\" (HVM), which is a way FDS divides up men, not unlike the famous 1-10 scale many women find so degrading, like cattle, into groups that FDS sees as having something to offer them (height, a six pack, a six figure salary, a nice house, nice car, a large penis, etc.) and those who don't; if you lack those things, you are a \"low value\" man, according to FDS.  So lets just stop there for a moment and recap. Imagine there was a male-oriented reddit sub that had nearly a 150x - 500x user overlap with openly misogynistic and transphobic subs. Imagine they routinely referred to women solely as \"non-human female-like creatures,\" or \"vulvas\" or \"holes\" or referred to all women who weren't 120lbs or less with DD breasts and mean blowjob skills and a passion for anal as \"low value.\" Right there I think that would be more than enough to say that this hypothetical sub is toxic and hateful, not deserving of praise.  But FDS is also chalk-full of shitty advice.  * They make fun of men who are passionate about physical fitness (despite demanding men be fit) * \"If we\u2019re not fucking, I don\u2019t want to cuddle. If you\u2019re not taking me out, I don\u2019t want to see you.\" * They unironically support forced vasectomy * They think men who aren't immediately pushing for sex must have weird-looking or \"dysfunctional\" penises * They think that men will always treat women in their present exactly like women in their past and shouldn't be given any amount of time to decide if they want a serious relationship with women * They think that men have nothing to offer except money and attractiveness * They think that small penises aren't \"normal,\" are useless in bed, and women shouldn't be with a man who has one * Men are \"the fucking worst,\" \"trashy, overly sexual, disrespectful ass garbage,\" \"too timid,\" \"intellectually brain dead,\" \"boring,\" \"uncreative and lack curiosity,\" \"unattractive,\" \"shit as sex,\" and \"negligent.\" * They think that men should be \"instantly\" in love with them or they're not worth spending any time on  I could go on but I'm getting tired of linking stuff from there. I think you get the idea.  The final bit of toxicity and bad advice-nature of FDS took me a while to realize. I'm subbed to a lot of subs dealing with gendered and dating issues: GC, PPF, FDS, TRP, MGTOW, etc. As I said earlier, I regard the male versions of these subs as toxic, hateful, and counterproductive, but one (fairly common sense) thing that they get right is that self-improvement is a major prerequisite in regards to having success with women. Advice like \"lose weight, lift, get a sharp hair cut, upgrade your wardrobe, get a high paying job, get a nice car, and develop an interesting and entertaining personality\" is a dime a dozen on PUA and TRP-type subs. And it's not bad advice; if a guy isn't having luck with women, it makes sense to conclude there's probably something about him that needs to be improved so he'll have better chances.  It took me a while to notice, but FDS is totally bereft of any advice of this sort. They are not self-critical or interested in any true self-improvement. Their view on this is that all women are, by virtue of being women, automatically maximally awesome and desirable and deserving of Mr. Right or Prince Charming and the only \"self improvement\" required is that women realize this and stop settling for anything less. You will not find, or at least I haven't in like 6mo of being subbed there and *looking,* any posts telling women to work on their appearance or personality in order to help maximize their chances of success in dating. I would argue that this is both toxic and, in regards to dating, textbook bad advice; if you're repeatedly having bad interactions with the opposite sex the most logical thing to do is to examine the common denominator (and also the only thing you really control in the equation - you - and see what you could do improve yourself. FDS skips that step entirely.  TL;DR: FDS is a toxic, hateful cesspool and a self-reinforcing echo-chamber of bad advice and should be regarded as such, not praised.","c_root_id_A":"flfdogz","c_root_id_B":"fleu09a","created_at_utc_A":1585103969,"created_at_utc_B":1585091512,"score_A":38,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"As a woman who dates women, I can confidently say that if I ever tried using those \"dating strategies\" or that kind of hateful terminology with another woman it would immediately be seen as disgusting toxic behavior.  That tells you that it isnt about \"dating\" at all. Those women are just horrible toxic people who contribute to the overarching patriarchy and gender inequality in society.","human_ref_B":"So I think that the situation with the WSJ is relatively easily explained. The WSJ is a newspaper with a conservative editorial page, and as such it tends to publish content that leans conservative. Most of the ways in which FDS is toxic\/hateful are just it affirming traditional gender roles: things like being trans-exclusionary, saying that men must pursue women, men must pay for dates, discouraging women from having sex for pleasure alone. These things, while toxic, are all attractive to conservatives because they affirm and support traditional models of gender. And conservatives have never particularly cared about gendered slurs (that's mostly a left-wing thing). So it's not surprising to see an essay supporting this group in a conservative-learning paper like the WSJ.  On the other hand, the male-focused other groups that you mention do not enforce and support gender roles and narratives. Groups like MGTOW are explicit in their rejection of those roles, but other groups like PUA also undermine them in other ways. This makes these groups unattractive to conservative news media, which is why we don't see papers like the WSJ supporting them.  (Both types of groups are of course unpalatable to more liberal media outlets because of the misogyny\/transmisogyny.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12457.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"fof2q9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: r\/FemaleDatingStrategy is a toxic, hateful sub filled with bad advice and shouldn't be viewed as a positive community on reddit. I'm writing this because while in my experience condemnation of or at least acknowledgement of the toxicity, hatefulness, and bad advice-full-ness of \"manosphere\" subs or communities focused around The Red Pill, Pick Up Artistry, or Men Going Their Own Way is nearly universal among people who are not in those communities, I have seen a fair number of people who are not r\/FemaleDatingStrategy users come to the defense of FDS with comments like \"oh they're just focused on helping women not get taken advantage of and ensuring they get the most out of dating, there's nothing wrong with that!\"  This kind of positive outsider view of FDS culminated in an article the Wall Street Journal published about FDS in which they praised the sub for offering \"actually practical advice in the age of dating apps,\" because \"Today\u2019s Tinderella must swipe through a lot of ugly profiles to find her prince,\" and claiming that \"The strategies that FDSers endorse, particularly for online dating, are backed by scientific research\" and concluding that \"If love is a battlefield, communities like Female Dating Strategy are trying to better arm some of the combatants.\"  I find it very hard to believe that a major publication like the WSJ would ever publish a favorable piece about a community like PUA or TRP the way they did for FDS. I looked. I found a bunch of major publications who dove into why PUA, TRP, and MGTOW are toxic, hateful, and filled with bad advice, but none praising them. This double standard maintained by many redditors and apparently by the writers for major news outlets in condemning TRP-like communities but not their female equivalents is, more than anything, what prompted me to make this post. It also means that if your counterargument is anything like \"well but TRP is toxic!\" it will not change my view on anything, because I agree with that already.  To the meat of why FDS is toxic, hateful, and filled with bad advice:  First it's worth looking at who uses FDS. According to subredditstats.com, r\/GenderCritical, reddit's largets TERF subreddit, has a user overlap of 151 with FDS, and is ranked as the most similar sub; r\/PinkpillFeminism, arguably reddit's largest and most overt misandristic subreddit, has a user overlap of 482 with FDS, and is also ranked as the most similar subreddit to it. In short, TERFs and misandrists are respectively 151 and 482 times more likely than the average reddit user to frequent FDS; FDS is, therefore, largely populated with transphobes (note it is \"female\" dating strategy, not \"womens\" dating strategy) and man-haters.  As for hatefulness, FDS maintains a host of dehumanizing terms for men, the most popular of which is \"moid,\" meaning a \"man like humanoid,\" meaning, \"something male but not entirely human.\" Another favorite is \"scrote,\" obviously referring to and reducing men down to their testicles, which can be seen in popular FDS flairs like \"The Scrotation,\" or \"Roast-A-Scrote\" or \"Scrotes Mad.\" Finally, \"Low Value Male\" (LVM) and \"High Value Male\" (HVM), which is a way FDS divides up men, not unlike the famous 1-10 scale many women find so degrading, like cattle, into groups that FDS sees as having something to offer them (height, a six pack, a six figure salary, a nice house, nice car, a large penis, etc.) and those who don't; if you lack those things, you are a \"low value\" man, according to FDS.  So lets just stop there for a moment and recap. Imagine there was a male-oriented reddit sub that had nearly a 150x - 500x user overlap with openly misogynistic and transphobic subs. Imagine they routinely referred to women solely as \"non-human female-like creatures,\" or \"vulvas\" or \"holes\" or referred to all women who weren't 120lbs or less with DD breasts and mean blowjob skills and a passion for anal as \"low value.\" Right there I think that would be more than enough to say that this hypothetical sub is toxic and hateful, not deserving of praise.  But FDS is also chalk-full of shitty advice.  * They make fun of men who are passionate about physical fitness (despite demanding men be fit) * \"If we\u2019re not fucking, I don\u2019t want to cuddle. If you\u2019re not taking me out, I don\u2019t want to see you.\" * They unironically support forced vasectomy * They think men who aren't immediately pushing for sex must have weird-looking or \"dysfunctional\" penises * They think that men will always treat women in their present exactly like women in their past and shouldn't be given any amount of time to decide if they want a serious relationship with women * They think that men have nothing to offer except money and attractiveness * They think that small penises aren't \"normal,\" are useless in bed, and women shouldn't be with a man who has one * Men are \"the fucking worst,\" \"trashy, overly sexual, disrespectful ass garbage,\" \"too timid,\" \"intellectually brain dead,\" \"boring,\" \"uncreative and lack curiosity,\" \"unattractive,\" \"shit as sex,\" and \"negligent.\" * They think that men should be \"instantly\" in love with them or they're not worth spending any time on  I could go on but I'm getting tired of linking stuff from there. I think you get the idea.  The final bit of toxicity and bad advice-nature of FDS took me a while to realize. I'm subbed to a lot of subs dealing with gendered and dating issues: GC, PPF, FDS, TRP, MGTOW, etc. As I said earlier, I regard the male versions of these subs as toxic, hateful, and counterproductive, but one (fairly common sense) thing that they get right is that self-improvement is a major prerequisite in regards to having success with women. Advice like \"lose weight, lift, get a sharp hair cut, upgrade your wardrobe, get a high paying job, get a nice car, and develop an interesting and entertaining personality\" is a dime a dozen on PUA and TRP-type subs. And it's not bad advice; if a guy isn't having luck with women, it makes sense to conclude there's probably something about him that needs to be improved so he'll have better chances.  It took me a while to notice, but FDS is totally bereft of any advice of this sort. They are not self-critical or interested in any true self-improvement. Their view on this is that all women are, by virtue of being women, automatically maximally awesome and desirable and deserving of Mr. Right or Prince Charming and the only \"self improvement\" required is that women realize this and stop settling for anything less. You will not find, or at least I haven't in like 6mo of being subbed there and *looking,* any posts telling women to work on their appearance or personality in order to help maximize their chances of success in dating. I would argue that this is both toxic and, in regards to dating, textbook bad advice; if you're repeatedly having bad interactions with the opposite sex the most logical thing to do is to examine the common denominator (and also the only thing you really control in the equation - you - and see what you could do improve yourself. FDS skips that step entirely.  TL;DR: FDS is a toxic, hateful cesspool and a self-reinforcing echo-chamber of bad advice and should be regarded as such, not praised.","c_root_id_A":"flg6iei","c_root_id_B":"flhpe9o","created_at_utc_A":1585132662,"created_at_utc_B":1585167000,"score_A":10,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t refer to men as moids or scrotes and I never have. I think if I hope to find love with a man one day there\u2019s no point calling them that.  HVM doesn\u2019t necessarily mean he has lots of money it just means that he has a respectful and caring, thoughtful attitude towards you.   HVM doesn\u2019t mean tall, big dick, handsome but it gives women the freedom to choose to have certain standards\/preferences if they want. HVM does include a man with ambition and work ethic who doesn\u2019t sit at home in a messy unclean house doing nothing but playing video games. There is an in between you know, a man can have enough money to be able to support himself and one day comfortably have children too, but he doesn\u2019t have to be loaded rich. Asking for the first one should be a requirement for any woman who wants kids with a man.   Women can choose to have those standards for looks or great wealth for men if they like but they don\u2019t rate someone as a HVM based on that, those are personal standards. Me personally I don\u2019t mind about height, but I do care about having an attractive man in general, and I in return am also good looking and work on my grooming\/fitness. We don\u2019t rate men like cattle as you say.   The only hard and fast rule for HVM is that he fits *our personal* preference and that he is above all punctual, respectful, and cares about us. I know in my personal life i genuinely get put off by guys who try to act like an uncaring \u201casshole\u201d. I\u2019m genuinely not into that. I like guys who actually show they may be interested in me.   In the subs handbook it does say that we have to be mentally healthy and financially stable ourselves first. One of the guideline books says we must have whatever we ask for in a man ourselves.  I think the lack of emphasis on women\u2019s beauty is to help not make us too focused on beauty and obsess over it. They just advise for women to have mental health, a good social life, clean and groom yourself and stay healthy. They try not to obsess excessively over looks. I personally wear makeup and try to do my hair nicely and am very into fashion. I don\u2019t think every woman on FDS is as passionate about beauty but many women are, I\u2019m sure they at least keep themselves hygeinic, well dressed, healthy and active if they expect their boyfriend or husband to be.  I made a post in which I said I\u2019d be working on my fitness so I can better catch the attention an attractive guy.","human_ref_B":"Seems like a female version of MGTOW. Just plain horrible. Thanks for raising awareness of this.  And just to keep comment relevant to this sub, I don't agree with this statement of yours:  > I found a bunch of major publications who dove into why PUA, TRP, and MGTOW are toxic, hateful, and filled with bad advice, but none praising them  Certainly, you could find sites in the alternative media that praise these subcultures.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34338.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"u09u2b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Cultural Appropriation a good thing in many cases. So I recently came across some interesting controversy regarding a certain celebrity speaking in a way some may refer to as a blaccent (black accent). In this particular case it\u2019s very clear the person wasn\u2019t mocking or demeaning in any way, and it seemingly was just the way they spoke most of the time. However I noticed that a significant number of people find this way of speaking to be offensive when the speaker isn\u2019t black. They called it Cultural Appropriation. A term that has gained more and more traction in the last decade. Some think this act of Cultural Appropriation is a sin ranging from insensitive ignorance to straight up racism.   This is just an inevitable part of the human experience. Cultural Appropriation just a sign your culture is succeeding  If someone or some groups are respectfully trying to emulate your culture or aspects of it, wouldn\u2019t that be a good thing? This is provided that it\u2019s done in a respectful way (I am in no way speaking of someone mocking cultural practices). Culture and language are living things with a constant exchange between different groups. This is how cultures survive, spread, and possibly dominate.   There are many ways a culture can spread but in the case of black culture in America I think we can all agree it\u2019s succeeding because of its cool factor. Everything from gospel and blues inspiring rock and roll to current hip hop and RnB are linked to black culture.   So my question to everyone is: Do you think cultural appropriation is bad? Why or why not and what situations make it bad. Also is it an inevitable part of human existence whether we like it or not?","c_root_id_A":"i44izym","c_root_id_B":"i44m1d0","created_at_utc_A":1649565280,"created_at_utc_B":1649566941,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I think if somebody uses another's culture to gain financially and doesn't contribute to the culture they're impersonating then it's bad. But I do get what you're saying when it comes to having an appreciation for a certain culture so you imitate things from that culture. I think it just matters what you do or don't gain from it.","human_ref_B":"it's not a sign of your culture succeeding when it only succeeds when people not of that culture use it but when those in the culture use it they are discriminated against","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1661.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"u09u2b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Cultural Appropriation a good thing in many cases. So I recently came across some interesting controversy regarding a certain celebrity speaking in a way some may refer to as a blaccent (black accent). In this particular case it\u2019s very clear the person wasn\u2019t mocking or demeaning in any way, and it seemingly was just the way they spoke most of the time. However I noticed that a significant number of people find this way of speaking to be offensive when the speaker isn\u2019t black. They called it Cultural Appropriation. A term that has gained more and more traction in the last decade. Some think this act of Cultural Appropriation is a sin ranging from insensitive ignorance to straight up racism.   This is just an inevitable part of the human experience. Cultural Appropriation just a sign your culture is succeeding  If someone or some groups are respectfully trying to emulate your culture or aspects of it, wouldn\u2019t that be a good thing? This is provided that it\u2019s done in a respectful way (I am in no way speaking of someone mocking cultural practices). Culture and language are living things with a constant exchange between different groups. This is how cultures survive, spread, and possibly dominate.   There are many ways a culture can spread but in the case of black culture in America I think we can all agree it\u2019s succeeding because of its cool factor. Everything from gospel and blues inspiring rock and roll to current hip hop and RnB are linked to black culture.   So my question to everyone is: Do you think cultural appropriation is bad? Why or why not and what situations make it bad. Also is it an inevitable part of human existence whether we like it or not?","c_root_id_A":"i44m1d0","c_root_id_B":"i44ikds","created_at_utc_A":1649566941,"created_at_utc_B":1649565041,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"it's not a sign of your culture succeeding when it only succeeds when people not of that culture use it but when those in the culture use it they are discriminated against","human_ref_B":"I think it's the lack of context once something is appropriated that makes it feel inauthentic and offensive even to a bystander.  Think of that middle aged middle class rapper at a birthday party, I think we can all agree that's awful.  As someone that's part of a culture though, to see something that your cultural group has developed and has become part of the fabric of your community appropriated by people that don't even truly understand it without your context, adopt it and then flaunt it is kind of offensive too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1900.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u09u2b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Cultural Appropriation a good thing in many cases. So I recently came across some interesting controversy regarding a certain celebrity speaking in a way some may refer to as a blaccent (black accent). In this particular case it\u2019s very clear the person wasn\u2019t mocking or demeaning in any way, and it seemingly was just the way they spoke most of the time. However I noticed that a significant number of people find this way of speaking to be offensive when the speaker isn\u2019t black. They called it Cultural Appropriation. A term that has gained more and more traction in the last decade. Some think this act of Cultural Appropriation is a sin ranging from insensitive ignorance to straight up racism.   This is just an inevitable part of the human experience. Cultural Appropriation just a sign your culture is succeeding  If someone or some groups are respectfully trying to emulate your culture or aspects of it, wouldn\u2019t that be a good thing? This is provided that it\u2019s done in a respectful way (I am in no way speaking of someone mocking cultural practices). Culture and language are living things with a constant exchange between different groups. This is how cultures survive, spread, and possibly dominate.   There are many ways a culture can spread but in the case of black culture in America I think we can all agree it\u2019s succeeding because of its cool factor. Everything from gospel and blues inspiring rock and roll to current hip hop and RnB are linked to black culture.   So my question to everyone is: Do you think cultural appropriation is bad? Why or why not and what situations make it bad. Also is it an inevitable part of human existence whether we like it or not?","c_root_id_A":"i44ikds","c_root_id_B":"i44izym","created_at_utc_A":1649565041,"created_at_utc_B":1649565280,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think it's the lack of context once something is appropriated that makes it feel inauthentic and offensive even to a bystander.  Think of that middle aged middle class rapper at a birthday party, I think we can all agree that's awful.  As someone that's part of a culture though, to see something that your cultural group has developed and has become part of the fabric of your community appropriated by people that don't even truly understand it without your context, adopt it and then flaunt it is kind of offensive too.","human_ref_B":"I think if somebody uses another's culture to gain financially and doesn't contribute to the culture they're impersonating then it's bad. But I do get what you're saying when it comes to having an appreciation for a certain culture so you imitate things from that culture. I think it just matters what you do or don't gain from it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":239.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"u09u2b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Cultural Appropriation a good thing in many cases. So I recently came across some interesting controversy regarding a certain celebrity speaking in a way some may refer to as a blaccent (black accent). In this particular case it\u2019s very clear the person wasn\u2019t mocking or demeaning in any way, and it seemingly was just the way they spoke most of the time. However I noticed that a significant number of people find this way of speaking to be offensive when the speaker isn\u2019t black. They called it Cultural Appropriation. A term that has gained more and more traction in the last decade. Some think this act of Cultural Appropriation is a sin ranging from insensitive ignorance to straight up racism.   This is just an inevitable part of the human experience. Cultural Appropriation just a sign your culture is succeeding  If someone or some groups are respectfully trying to emulate your culture or aspects of it, wouldn\u2019t that be a good thing? This is provided that it\u2019s done in a respectful way (I am in no way speaking of someone mocking cultural practices). Culture and language are living things with a constant exchange between different groups. This is how cultures survive, spread, and possibly dominate.   There are many ways a culture can spread but in the case of black culture in America I think we can all agree it\u2019s succeeding because of its cool factor. Everything from gospel and blues inspiring rock and roll to current hip hop and RnB are linked to black culture.   So my question to everyone is: Do you think cultural appropriation is bad? Why or why not and what situations make it bad. Also is it an inevitable part of human existence whether we like it or not?","c_root_id_A":"i45dcav","c_root_id_B":"i44m6ys","created_at_utc_A":1649586929,"created_at_utc_B":1649567026,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Yesterday I was clearing the chametz from every corner in the room, preparing for Passover. My husband says, \u201cso Spring cleaning is not an original American-Christian activity; it actually originated with the Jews?\u201d Some would hard-reach to call this appropriation. I view it as inspiration. Call it Spring Cleaning or Clearing the Chametz, and the results are the same \u2014 a fresh cleaned refrigerator, freezer, oven, curtains, blinds, ceiling fans, windows that you\u2019re opening wide to let the new Spring air in\u2026etc. Add a spiritual component to it to make it meaningful- invite the kids to help \u201csearch for Chametz\u201d, and discuss the ways this not only clears the home, but clears the soul. I have no problem with something like this.   However, if someone wore a kippah, just because \u201cthey like the way it looks\u201d, I may feel uncomfortable, as that is clearly a religious symbol to revere G-d as above us. I\u2019m not particularly worried about someone finding similar meaning, but rather it becoming a normalized fashion trend that becomes meaningless. I use kippah to identify myself and others who are Jewish, and I\u2019d be hurt if I could no longer do that.","human_ref_B":"If a white person uses black originated music to be 'cool' but doesn't give any money they earned to black communities, is the fact that the 'culture' is succeeding any comfort? Elvis got a lot of shit for that, basically allowing racists to be able to get the benefits of black culture without having to actually deal with black people.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19903.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"u09u2b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Cultural Appropriation a good thing in many cases. So I recently came across some interesting controversy regarding a certain celebrity speaking in a way some may refer to as a blaccent (black accent). In this particular case it\u2019s very clear the person wasn\u2019t mocking or demeaning in any way, and it seemingly was just the way they spoke most of the time. However I noticed that a significant number of people find this way of speaking to be offensive when the speaker isn\u2019t black. They called it Cultural Appropriation. A term that has gained more and more traction in the last decade. Some think this act of Cultural Appropriation is a sin ranging from insensitive ignorance to straight up racism.   This is just an inevitable part of the human experience. Cultural Appropriation just a sign your culture is succeeding  If someone or some groups are respectfully trying to emulate your culture or aspects of it, wouldn\u2019t that be a good thing? This is provided that it\u2019s done in a respectful way (I am in no way speaking of someone mocking cultural practices). Culture and language are living things with a constant exchange between different groups. This is how cultures survive, spread, and possibly dominate.   There are many ways a culture can spread but in the case of black culture in America I think we can all agree it\u2019s succeeding because of its cool factor. Everything from gospel and blues inspiring rock and roll to current hip hop and RnB are linked to black culture.   So my question to everyone is: Do you think cultural appropriation is bad? Why or why not and what situations make it bad. Also is it an inevitable part of human existence whether we like it or not?","c_root_id_A":"i45dcav","c_root_id_B":"i45cez6","created_at_utc_A":1649586929,"created_at_utc_B":1649586172,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Yesterday I was clearing the chametz from every corner in the room, preparing for Passover. My husband says, \u201cso Spring cleaning is not an original American-Christian activity; it actually originated with the Jews?\u201d Some would hard-reach to call this appropriation. I view it as inspiration. Call it Spring Cleaning or Clearing the Chametz, and the results are the same \u2014 a fresh cleaned refrigerator, freezer, oven, curtains, blinds, ceiling fans, windows that you\u2019re opening wide to let the new Spring air in\u2026etc. Add a spiritual component to it to make it meaningful- invite the kids to help \u201csearch for Chametz\u201d, and discuss the ways this not only clears the home, but clears the soul. I have no problem with something like this.   However, if someone wore a kippah, just because \u201cthey like the way it looks\u201d, I may feel uncomfortable, as that is clearly a religious symbol to revere G-d as above us. I\u2019m not particularly worried about someone finding similar meaning, but rather it becoming a normalized fashion trend that becomes meaningless. I use kippah to identify myself and others who are Jewish, and I\u2019d be hurt if I could no longer do that.","human_ref_B":">If someone or some groups are respectfully trying to emulate your culture or aspects of it, wouldn\u2019t that be a good thing? This is provided that it\u2019s done in a respectful way (I am in no way speaking of someone mocking cultural practices)  I think there is a huge middle ground between those two, that is not exactly made with an overtly ill intent, but also isn't particularly concerned with respecting the original context of the cultural artifact.  At one extreme, obviously you shouldn't take someone's music, fashion, speech style, etc. specifically to mock and demean them, that's obviously wrong beyond the scope of appropriation, it's just cruel.  At the other extreme, if for example a nation really wants their cousine to be popular worldwide, and they openly don't care who is profiting from it or what context it is produced in, then a foreigner learning it and producing more of it can be entirely respectful of their wishes.  But also, there is a lot of middle ground: for example consider a beach bar in Florida with a Papyrus font sign proclaiming it as the \"Aloha Bar\", and the place is decorated with lots of palm leaves, tapa patterns, tiki statues, and waitresses in hula skirts, and a vaguely hawaiian music playing in the background ripped from a youtube \"beats to relax to\" page, and the whole place is owned by a random white guy who thought that a native Hawaiian aesthetic feels vaguely relaxing.  That's not exactly consciously \"mocking\" native Hawaiian culture, but neither is it an example of Native Hawaiian culture \"dominating\" the world, or being treated with great respect: it is a result of Hawaii as an entire nation having ended up stolen by the US, turned into the nation's beach resort, and it's people's way of life being repurposed as branding that western businessmen use to sell products associated with pleasure and vacation time. Their housing and clothes, their music, their decorations, all of it is now something that people around the world occasionally put on as an allusion to the place where they like to go to be served Mai Tais on a beach by the people that their country conquered.  And there is something tacky, and degrading about that, even without ill intent.  A big question is whether cultural exchange is done on equal footing, so that both sides can be in charge of deciding which of their cultural artifacts do they want to promot abroad, and how much are they insisting on profiting from it, or it is done to one coulture by another one that has colonized and occupied and dominated it, where also taking their culture and making it popular without consideration ,can add insult to injury even if it wasn't done out of spite.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":757.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"u09u2b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Cultural Appropriation a good thing in many cases. So I recently came across some interesting controversy regarding a certain celebrity speaking in a way some may refer to as a blaccent (black accent). In this particular case it\u2019s very clear the person wasn\u2019t mocking or demeaning in any way, and it seemingly was just the way they spoke most of the time. However I noticed that a significant number of people find this way of speaking to be offensive when the speaker isn\u2019t black. They called it Cultural Appropriation. A term that has gained more and more traction in the last decade. Some think this act of Cultural Appropriation is a sin ranging from insensitive ignorance to straight up racism.   This is just an inevitable part of the human experience. Cultural Appropriation just a sign your culture is succeeding  If someone or some groups are respectfully trying to emulate your culture or aspects of it, wouldn\u2019t that be a good thing? This is provided that it\u2019s done in a respectful way (I am in no way speaking of someone mocking cultural practices). Culture and language are living things with a constant exchange between different groups. This is how cultures survive, spread, and possibly dominate.   There are many ways a culture can spread but in the case of black culture in America I think we can all agree it\u2019s succeeding because of its cool factor. Everything from gospel and blues inspiring rock and roll to current hip hop and RnB are linked to black culture.   So my question to everyone is: Do you think cultural appropriation is bad? Why or why not and what situations make it bad. Also is it an inevitable part of human existence whether we like it or not?","c_root_id_A":"i45bg0f","c_root_id_B":"i44m6ys","created_at_utc_A":1649585368,"created_at_utc_B":1649567026,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"you are confusing, as soo many shouty people do in the opposite direction, appropriation with adoption. Appropriation is not just adopting the practices of another culture, it's claiming onwership, so say adoption is a white guy rapping, appropriation is a white guy claiming white people invented rap.  There should be no problem with adoption and frankly the people who have a problem, say give some six year old girl grief for wearing her hair in bunches, are just assholes, as are the people claiming white people invented rap.","human_ref_B":"If a white person uses black originated music to be 'cool' but doesn't give any money they earned to black communities, is the fact that the 'culture' is succeeding any comfort? Elvis got a lot of shit for that, basically allowing racists to be able to get the benefits of black culture without having to actually deal with black people.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18342.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"u09u2b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Cultural Appropriation a good thing in many cases. So I recently came across some interesting controversy regarding a certain celebrity speaking in a way some may refer to as a blaccent (black accent). In this particular case it\u2019s very clear the person wasn\u2019t mocking or demeaning in any way, and it seemingly was just the way they spoke most of the time. However I noticed that a significant number of people find this way of speaking to be offensive when the speaker isn\u2019t black. They called it Cultural Appropriation. A term that has gained more and more traction in the last decade. Some think this act of Cultural Appropriation is a sin ranging from insensitive ignorance to straight up racism.   This is just an inevitable part of the human experience. Cultural Appropriation just a sign your culture is succeeding  If someone or some groups are respectfully trying to emulate your culture or aspects of it, wouldn\u2019t that be a good thing? This is provided that it\u2019s done in a respectful way (I am in no way speaking of someone mocking cultural practices). Culture and language are living things with a constant exchange between different groups. This is how cultures survive, spread, and possibly dominate.   There are many ways a culture can spread but in the case of black culture in America I think we can all agree it\u2019s succeeding because of its cool factor. Everything from gospel and blues inspiring rock and roll to current hip hop and RnB are linked to black culture.   So my question to everyone is: Do you think cultural appropriation is bad? Why or why not and what situations make it bad. Also is it an inevitable part of human existence whether we like it or not?","c_root_id_A":"i45cez6","c_root_id_B":"i469il3","created_at_utc_A":1649586172,"created_at_utc_B":1649604614,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">If someone or some groups are respectfully trying to emulate your culture or aspects of it, wouldn\u2019t that be a good thing? This is provided that it\u2019s done in a respectful way (I am in no way speaking of someone mocking cultural practices)  I think there is a huge middle ground between those two, that is not exactly made with an overtly ill intent, but also isn't particularly concerned with respecting the original context of the cultural artifact.  At one extreme, obviously you shouldn't take someone's music, fashion, speech style, etc. specifically to mock and demean them, that's obviously wrong beyond the scope of appropriation, it's just cruel.  At the other extreme, if for example a nation really wants their cousine to be popular worldwide, and they openly don't care who is profiting from it or what context it is produced in, then a foreigner learning it and producing more of it can be entirely respectful of their wishes.  But also, there is a lot of middle ground: for example consider a beach bar in Florida with a Papyrus font sign proclaiming it as the \"Aloha Bar\", and the place is decorated with lots of palm leaves, tapa patterns, tiki statues, and waitresses in hula skirts, and a vaguely hawaiian music playing in the background ripped from a youtube \"beats to relax to\" page, and the whole place is owned by a random white guy who thought that a native Hawaiian aesthetic feels vaguely relaxing.  That's not exactly consciously \"mocking\" native Hawaiian culture, but neither is it an example of Native Hawaiian culture \"dominating\" the world, or being treated with great respect: it is a result of Hawaii as an entire nation having ended up stolen by the US, turned into the nation's beach resort, and it's people's way of life being repurposed as branding that western businessmen use to sell products associated with pleasure and vacation time. Their housing and clothes, their music, their decorations, all of it is now something that people around the world occasionally put on as an allusion to the place where they like to go to be served Mai Tais on a beach by the people that their country conquered.  And there is something tacky, and degrading about that, even without ill intent.  A big question is whether cultural exchange is done on equal footing, so that both sides can be in charge of deciding which of their cultural artifacts do they want to promot abroad, and how much are they insisting on profiting from it, or it is done to one coulture by another one that has colonized and occupied and dominated it, where also taking their culture and making it popular without consideration ,can add insult to injury even if it wasn't done out of spite.","human_ref_B":"Ok.  I am southern. I have been accused of using a \u201cblack\u201d accent. I\u2019m confused cuz everyone down here talks the same way","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18442.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"ljejxs","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: elderly citizens in the US should be legally REQUIRED to re-new their Driver\u2019s License w\/ a physical driving exam after age 75. I believe there should be a MANDATORY re-application with an accompanying driving exam to re-new a citizens drivers license after age 75.   The most recent stat I\u2019ve seen is that at age 65, 1-in-3 Americans have some form of vision-impairing eye condition. Elderly ppl are also combating deteriorating motor skills and hand\/eye coordination that gets worse as humans age. Furthermore, I\u2019ve had many near-collisions with elderly citizens, and hence I do not think the roads are safe with them unless they have to re-take the DMV driving exam.   I\u2019d love to hear other people\u2019s opinions taking the opposite side of this belief - am I missing something?   I don\u2019t see the downside in affirming someone 75+ years old can safely operate a vehicle. But the upside is it will eliminate unsafe elderly drivers and save lives.   In the past...I would have accepted the argument that elderly need to be \u201cindependent\u201d and be able to run errands, etc. however, with the advances in technology & mobility (ie: Uber & Lyft for transportation, Postmates & grubhub for food, Instacart for groceries, Amzn prime for.....everything, etc) there is virtually nothing someone couldn\u2019t acquire by using a 3P vendor \/app. and for pharmaceutical Rx \/ health \/ etc there are companies like Capsule who deliver prescription drugs to your doorstep. If any of those options are economically challenging, there are vast public transportation networks that are also viable options.   To my knowledge...only Illinois and New Hampshire require re-testing for drivers license renewal at age 75. When it comes to the safety of our loved ones, I don\u2019t see why every other state wouldn\u2019t require this.","c_root_id_A":"gncycom","c_root_id_B":"gndb45p","created_at_utc_A":1613281105,"created_at_utc_B":1613286266,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The problem that might spring up after this is that now the elder in the US does not have any formal ID card. Many states don't have state ID and many of the American does not have a passport. I think it should not be mandated to every citizen in the US, just for anyone who lives in the state that provide state ID card.","human_ref_B":"Simple fact of the matter is, unconstitutional.   This is the definition of age discrimination.   Now what you could do thats legal is licenses at 16 then every 10 years retake your test.   Or every 15, 20 or whatever.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5161.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtafw36","c_root_id_B":"gtavaxz","created_at_utc_A":1617488583,"created_at_utc_B":1617497729,"score_A":7,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"I disagree that climate change isn't an existential threat. Studies estimate that more than 250,000 could die each year from climate change related causes. Before you say the numbers are overblown remember that when experts said that covid 19 could kill around 200,000 people in the US alone, you had people calling them idiots and alarmists. Today that number is 550,000. Also if Africa and the developing world for example continue on the trend of fast development or even increases it, climate change will be on steroids.  When you say scientific progress will make life better, I could also say that some emerging technologies risk taking us back to the cold war. Some include but not limited to Hypersonic waepons, surveillance states etc...  I like tha fact that you have an optimistic view of the future but let's not rest on our laurels","human_ref_B":"Well, \"better\" is a matter of perspective. I will assume you mean better in terms of a higher standard of living for the average person, with fewer major issues such as war, racism, economic crisis, environmental catastrophe, etc.  My opinion is that the next 50 years *could* be better, but only with a radical restructuring of the economy, which will likely take several revolutions. Given the fact that such a revolution is not on the horizon any time soon, I think it's most likely that the \"naysayers\" as you put it will turn out to be correct.  Now to respond to your points:  Point 1:  > It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.   What do you make of the nascent fascist movement in the US? At the moment, they aren't very organized and have essentially zero chance at getting near the halls of power. But many legislators are now practically open fascists (Marjorie Taylor Greene), and the conditions which created them (failure of the Left, neoliberal austerity, economic crisis) have not really gone away. If the fascists get into power, you can bet that all of this social progress will be gone.  Furthermore, the most recent recession has disproportionately impacted women and is likely to reinforce gender norms which previously were considered outdated. Women with partners who make enough money will likely be forced to stay home. Poorer women and women of color will likely be forced to do double duty caring for children and working simultaneously.  Furthermore, abortion is becoming more and more difficult to access: https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/politics-news\/report-details-wave-state-legislative-attempts-restrict-abortion-2021-n1262070. This trend is likely to intensify over time as the fight over child-rearing and who will pay for it intensifies.  Point 2:  > Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.   Life expectancy is trending downward in the USA: https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/us-life-expectancy-declined-for-third-year-in-a-row-2019-11  Science and medicine certainly can help people live better and longer lives, but it doesn't guarantee that. Current levels of wealth and income inequality are likely to make accessing decent medical care more and more difficult. Furthermore, the lack of decently paying jobs and stable housing is likely to shorten more people's lives despite any advances in medical care.  Furthermore, while the world might have handled this pandemic relatively well compared with the Spanish flu, it did extremely poorly in comparison to what it could have. For most governments across the West in particular, it was more important for people to continue to work and make profits for the corporations than it was to save people's lives.  Finally, a point that doesn't get mentioned very often is that this pandemic is actually a result of capitalism. Agribusiness destroys biodiversity, puts humans in contact with animals they never were before, and lines up hoards of genetically similar creatures next to each other. In other words, they create the ideal conditions for virulent and deadly pandemics. Current society has no way of addressing the root causes of this crisis.  To learn more, you can read https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Big-Farms-Make-Flu-Agribusiness\/dp\/1583675892.  Point 3:  > Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago.   This is similar to the era of the New Deal, actually. Outside of the U.S., everything except the Green New Deal has been achieved in generations past. How is this progress?  > What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past.   No one ever wants war. It just becomes inevitable. Leaders need to \"look tough\" to their populace. Competing businesses and powers demand access to other nations' resources, and refuse to back down. Both sides think the other will back down if they just push a little harder, but they never do. Eventually everyone finds themselves in full-scale war. And all of this happens despite each side knowing the enormous cost.  Point 4:  > But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden.   No, it hasn't. Education, housing, and medical care have all become more expensive since the 1970s. More people are unhoused now than at any point aside from the Great Depression. Even food prices are starting to rise.  Point 5:  > Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.   \"Green energy\" is mostly a myth. There is no form of energy that does not cause environmental devastation at the scale required to sustain current energy demand. See https:\/\/e360.yale.edu\/features\/boom\\_in\\_mining\\_rare\\_earths\\_poses\\_mounting\\_toxic\\_risks#:\\~:text=A%20half%20century%20of%20rare,with%20a%20%E2%80%9Chigh%20concentration%E2%80%9D%20of for more information.  Capitalist firms have always destroyed the environment. They consider environmental degradation to be an externality. This is because they are in competition with each other for profits, and anyone who spares extra change for the environment will lose out. This is true even considering state regulation; different states are in competition with each other for their share of the global market. They won't pass any legislation that would imperil their share of the global market, even though it is precisely this legislation that is required to prevent catastrophe.  Our soil is degrading, disastrous storms are now commonplace, our food and water supply is contaminated with plastic permanently, the coral reefs are dying and most governments and corporations are still doing everything they can to make it worse. If climate change doesn't kill us, there's a long line of contenders willing to give it a shot.  \\---  I am not trying to be pessimistic. We can always try to make things better. The movements for climate justice, racial justice, etc. are promising and give me hope for a better future.  But putting our heads in the sand or thinking that things will turn out OK despite everything is counterproductive. We have to see the ugly truth if we want to make things better.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9146.0,"score_ratio":3.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtavaxz","c_root_id_B":"gtai57p","created_at_utc_A":1617497729,"created_at_utc_B":1617489875,"score_A":23,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Well, \"better\" is a matter of perspective. I will assume you mean better in terms of a higher standard of living for the average person, with fewer major issues such as war, racism, economic crisis, environmental catastrophe, etc.  My opinion is that the next 50 years *could* be better, but only with a radical restructuring of the economy, which will likely take several revolutions. Given the fact that such a revolution is not on the horizon any time soon, I think it's most likely that the \"naysayers\" as you put it will turn out to be correct.  Now to respond to your points:  Point 1:  > It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.   What do you make of the nascent fascist movement in the US? At the moment, they aren't very organized and have essentially zero chance at getting near the halls of power. But many legislators are now practically open fascists (Marjorie Taylor Greene), and the conditions which created them (failure of the Left, neoliberal austerity, economic crisis) have not really gone away. If the fascists get into power, you can bet that all of this social progress will be gone.  Furthermore, the most recent recession has disproportionately impacted women and is likely to reinforce gender norms which previously were considered outdated. Women with partners who make enough money will likely be forced to stay home. Poorer women and women of color will likely be forced to do double duty caring for children and working simultaneously.  Furthermore, abortion is becoming more and more difficult to access: https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/politics-news\/report-details-wave-state-legislative-attempts-restrict-abortion-2021-n1262070. This trend is likely to intensify over time as the fight over child-rearing and who will pay for it intensifies.  Point 2:  > Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.   Life expectancy is trending downward in the USA: https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/us-life-expectancy-declined-for-third-year-in-a-row-2019-11  Science and medicine certainly can help people live better and longer lives, but it doesn't guarantee that. Current levels of wealth and income inequality are likely to make accessing decent medical care more and more difficult. Furthermore, the lack of decently paying jobs and stable housing is likely to shorten more people's lives despite any advances in medical care.  Furthermore, while the world might have handled this pandemic relatively well compared with the Spanish flu, it did extremely poorly in comparison to what it could have. For most governments across the West in particular, it was more important for people to continue to work and make profits for the corporations than it was to save people's lives.  Finally, a point that doesn't get mentioned very often is that this pandemic is actually a result of capitalism. Agribusiness destroys biodiversity, puts humans in contact with animals they never were before, and lines up hoards of genetically similar creatures next to each other. In other words, they create the ideal conditions for virulent and deadly pandemics. Current society has no way of addressing the root causes of this crisis.  To learn more, you can read https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Big-Farms-Make-Flu-Agribusiness\/dp\/1583675892.  Point 3:  > Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago.   This is similar to the era of the New Deal, actually. Outside of the U.S., everything except the Green New Deal has been achieved in generations past. How is this progress?  > What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past.   No one ever wants war. It just becomes inevitable. Leaders need to \"look tough\" to their populace. Competing businesses and powers demand access to other nations' resources, and refuse to back down. Both sides think the other will back down if they just push a little harder, but they never do. Eventually everyone finds themselves in full-scale war. And all of this happens despite each side knowing the enormous cost.  Point 4:  > But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden.   No, it hasn't. Education, housing, and medical care have all become more expensive since the 1970s. More people are unhoused now than at any point aside from the Great Depression. Even food prices are starting to rise.  Point 5:  > Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.   \"Green energy\" is mostly a myth. There is no form of energy that does not cause environmental devastation at the scale required to sustain current energy demand. See https:\/\/e360.yale.edu\/features\/boom\\_in\\_mining\\_rare\\_earths\\_poses\\_mounting\\_toxic\\_risks#:\\~:text=A%20half%20century%20of%20rare,with%20a%20%E2%80%9Chigh%20concentration%E2%80%9D%20of for more information.  Capitalist firms have always destroyed the environment. They consider environmental degradation to be an externality. This is because they are in competition with each other for profits, and anyone who spares extra change for the environment will lose out. This is true even considering state regulation; different states are in competition with each other for their share of the global market. They won't pass any legislation that would imperil their share of the global market, even though it is precisely this legislation that is required to prevent catastrophe.  Our soil is degrading, disastrous storms are now commonplace, our food and water supply is contaminated with plastic permanently, the coral reefs are dying and most governments and corporations are still doing everything they can to make it worse. If climate change doesn't kill us, there's a long line of contenders willing to give it a shot.  \\---  I am not trying to be pessimistic. We can always try to make things better. The movements for climate justice, racial justice, etc. are promising and give me hope for a better future.  But putting our heads in the sand or thinking that things will turn out OK despite everything is counterproductive. We have to see the ugly truth if we want to make things better.","human_ref_B":"Climate change has the capacity to reduce food supply.  We face the prospect of climate refugees, and wars over water.  It's not a far left problem, it's everyone's problem.   It's true we are rolling out more wind and solar power, but the worldwide use of fossil fuels is still growing, and shows no sign of slowing down.  https:\/\/ourworldindata.org\/uploads\/2018\/05\/global-fossil-fuel-consumption-768x542.png  \"humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community.\"  I don't believe many in sub-Saharan Africa would agree with this.  We have got richer and they have got poorer.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7854.0,"score_ratio":4.6}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtavant","c_root_id_B":"gtavaxz","created_at_utc_A":1617497724,"created_at_utc_B":1617497729,"score_A":4,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"As a fellow American, I like your optimism. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I disagree with you. Humanity will not be better off in 50 years. Let me address each of your 5 reasons:  1. Social Progress: Yes, in some areas, like women\/minority\/LGBT rights, there has been significant social progress and greater equality. This is a good thing. But in many parts of the world and in many cultures, less progress has been made. And some places are moving backwards.  Also, there is still plenty of hatred, bigotry, prejudice and intolerance. Liberals and conservatives aren't very tolerant of each other. There is currently growing anti-male, anti-Christian, and anti-white sentiment on the left. In an increasingly multicultural society, not all groups are going to get along.  This could cause social problems in many western societies.  SJWs are very intolerant toward people who don\u2019t agree with them and will cancel people for not using the right pronouns or tweeting something \"offensive\" when they were 14 years old.   Political correctness and cancel culture has limited free speech. The media tries their best to divide us and keep us squabbling with each other. 2. Scientific and Medical Progress. I agree with you on this one. This is the one area where things will improve over the next 50 years. 3. Political Progress: I mean yes, overall the political spectrum is shifting more to the left. But is that progress? Either way, here is the main problem. Politicians don\u2019t care about the people they govern. Politicians care about their own political careers. They work for their party leaders, big corporate donors, and special interests. They are nearly all bought and paid for. They don\u2019t make decisions based on the best interest of the people they represent or that reflect the will of the people they represent.  In the US there is very little bipartisan cooperation. It\u2019s all about jockeying for power and they don\u2019t really care what happens to the \u201clittle people\u201d. Our political system is broken. 4. Economic Progress: The growing wealth disparity in the US is one of the biggest problems we face. The 1% is getting richer. The middle class is shrinking. The standard of living\/purchasing power of most Americans is going to be lower than that of previous generations. Most people will be less financially secure that our parents and grandparents were. 5. Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces: I agree with your take on Climate change. I think you are right. But there are many other dangers that humanity faces that are getting worse every day. Just to name a few: deforestation, air & water pollution, loss of biodiversity, water scarcity, overpopulation, toxins in the environment, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism. We are royally destroying our environment, but the only issue we ever hear about is Climate Change.  Like I said, I hope your right. But I think things are going to get worse over the next 50 years.","human_ref_B":"Well, \"better\" is a matter of perspective. I will assume you mean better in terms of a higher standard of living for the average person, with fewer major issues such as war, racism, economic crisis, environmental catastrophe, etc.  My opinion is that the next 50 years *could* be better, but only with a radical restructuring of the economy, which will likely take several revolutions. Given the fact that such a revolution is not on the horizon any time soon, I think it's most likely that the \"naysayers\" as you put it will turn out to be correct.  Now to respond to your points:  Point 1:  > It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.   What do you make of the nascent fascist movement in the US? At the moment, they aren't very organized and have essentially zero chance at getting near the halls of power. But many legislators are now practically open fascists (Marjorie Taylor Greene), and the conditions which created them (failure of the Left, neoliberal austerity, economic crisis) have not really gone away. If the fascists get into power, you can bet that all of this social progress will be gone.  Furthermore, the most recent recession has disproportionately impacted women and is likely to reinforce gender norms which previously were considered outdated. Women with partners who make enough money will likely be forced to stay home. Poorer women and women of color will likely be forced to do double duty caring for children and working simultaneously.  Furthermore, abortion is becoming more and more difficult to access: https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/politics-news\/report-details-wave-state-legislative-attempts-restrict-abortion-2021-n1262070. This trend is likely to intensify over time as the fight over child-rearing and who will pay for it intensifies.  Point 2:  > Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.   Life expectancy is trending downward in the USA: https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/us-life-expectancy-declined-for-third-year-in-a-row-2019-11  Science and medicine certainly can help people live better and longer lives, but it doesn't guarantee that. Current levels of wealth and income inequality are likely to make accessing decent medical care more and more difficult. Furthermore, the lack of decently paying jobs and stable housing is likely to shorten more people's lives despite any advances in medical care.  Furthermore, while the world might have handled this pandemic relatively well compared with the Spanish flu, it did extremely poorly in comparison to what it could have. For most governments across the West in particular, it was more important for people to continue to work and make profits for the corporations than it was to save people's lives.  Finally, a point that doesn't get mentioned very often is that this pandemic is actually a result of capitalism. Agribusiness destroys biodiversity, puts humans in contact with animals they never were before, and lines up hoards of genetically similar creatures next to each other. In other words, they create the ideal conditions for virulent and deadly pandemics. Current society has no way of addressing the root causes of this crisis.  To learn more, you can read https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Big-Farms-Make-Flu-Agribusiness\/dp\/1583675892.  Point 3:  > Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago.   This is similar to the era of the New Deal, actually. Outside of the U.S., everything except the Green New Deal has been achieved in generations past. How is this progress?  > What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past.   No one ever wants war. It just becomes inevitable. Leaders need to \"look tough\" to their populace. Competing businesses and powers demand access to other nations' resources, and refuse to back down. Both sides think the other will back down if they just push a little harder, but they never do. Eventually everyone finds themselves in full-scale war. And all of this happens despite each side knowing the enormous cost.  Point 4:  > But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden.   No, it hasn't. Education, housing, and medical care have all become more expensive since the 1970s. More people are unhoused now than at any point aside from the Great Depression. Even food prices are starting to rise.  Point 5:  > Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.   \"Green energy\" is mostly a myth. There is no form of energy that does not cause environmental devastation at the scale required to sustain current energy demand. See https:\/\/e360.yale.edu\/features\/boom\\_in\\_mining\\_rare\\_earths\\_poses\\_mounting\\_toxic\\_risks#:\\~:text=A%20half%20century%20of%20rare,with%20a%20%E2%80%9Chigh%20concentration%E2%80%9D%20of for more information.  Capitalist firms have always destroyed the environment. They consider environmental degradation to be an externality. This is because they are in competition with each other for profits, and anyone who spares extra change for the environment will lose out. This is true even considering state regulation; different states are in competition with each other for their share of the global market. They won't pass any legislation that would imperil their share of the global market, even though it is precisely this legislation that is required to prevent catastrophe.  Our soil is degrading, disastrous storms are now commonplace, our food and water supply is contaminated with plastic permanently, the coral reefs are dying and most governments and corporations are still doing everything they can to make it worse. If climate change doesn't kill us, there's a long line of contenders willing to give it a shot.  \\---  I am not trying to be pessimistic. We can always try to make things better. The movements for climate justice, racial justice, etc. are promising and give me hope for a better future.  But putting our heads in the sand or thinking that things will turn out OK despite everything is counterproductive. We have to see the ugly truth if we want to make things better.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5.0,"score_ratio":5.75}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtavaxz","c_root_id_B":"gtaf0qo","created_at_utc_A":1617497729,"created_at_utc_B":1617488083,"score_A":23,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Well, \"better\" is a matter of perspective. I will assume you mean better in terms of a higher standard of living for the average person, with fewer major issues such as war, racism, economic crisis, environmental catastrophe, etc.  My opinion is that the next 50 years *could* be better, but only with a radical restructuring of the economy, which will likely take several revolutions. Given the fact that such a revolution is not on the horizon any time soon, I think it's most likely that the \"naysayers\" as you put it will turn out to be correct.  Now to respond to your points:  Point 1:  > It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.   What do you make of the nascent fascist movement in the US? At the moment, they aren't very organized and have essentially zero chance at getting near the halls of power. But many legislators are now practically open fascists (Marjorie Taylor Greene), and the conditions which created them (failure of the Left, neoliberal austerity, economic crisis) have not really gone away. If the fascists get into power, you can bet that all of this social progress will be gone.  Furthermore, the most recent recession has disproportionately impacted women and is likely to reinforce gender norms which previously were considered outdated. Women with partners who make enough money will likely be forced to stay home. Poorer women and women of color will likely be forced to do double duty caring for children and working simultaneously.  Furthermore, abortion is becoming more and more difficult to access: https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/politics-news\/report-details-wave-state-legislative-attempts-restrict-abortion-2021-n1262070. This trend is likely to intensify over time as the fight over child-rearing and who will pay for it intensifies.  Point 2:  > Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.   Life expectancy is trending downward in the USA: https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/us-life-expectancy-declined-for-third-year-in-a-row-2019-11  Science and medicine certainly can help people live better and longer lives, but it doesn't guarantee that. Current levels of wealth and income inequality are likely to make accessing decent medical care more and more difficult. Furthermore, the lack of decently paying jobs and stable housing is likely to shorten more people's lives despite any advances in medical care.  Furthermore, while the world might have handled this pandemic relatively well compared with the Spanish flu, it did extremely poorly in comparison to what it could have. For most governments across the West in particular, it was more important for people to continue to work and make profits for the corporations than it was to save people's lives.  Finally, a point that doesn't get mentioned very often is that this pandemic is actually a result of capitalism. Agribusiness destroys biodiversity, puts humans in contact with animals they never were before, and lines up hoards of genetically similar creatures next to each other. In other words, they create the ideal conditions for virulent and deadly pandemics. Current society has no way of addressing the root causes of this crisis.  To learn more, you can read https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Big-Farms-Make-Flu-Agribusiness\/dp\/1583675892.  Point 3:  > Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago.   This is similar to the era of the New Deal, actually. Outside of the U.S., everything except the Green New Deal has been achieved in generations past. How is this progress?  > What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past.   No one ever wants war. It just becomes inevitable. Leaders need to \"look tough\" to their populace. Competing businesses and powers demand access to other nations' resources, and refuse to back down. Both sides think the other will back down if they just push a little harder, but they never do. Eventually everyone finds themselves in full-scale war. And all of this happens despite each side knowing the enormous cost.  Point 4:  > But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden.   No, it hasn't. Education, housing, and medical care have all become more expensive since the 1970s. More people are unhoused now than at any point aside from the Great Depression. Even food prices are starting to rise.  Point 5:  > Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.   \"Green energy\" is mostly a myth. There is no form of energy that does not cause environmental devastation at the scale required to sustain current energy demand. See https:\/\/e360.yale.edu\/features\/boom\\_in\\_mining\\_rare\\_earths\\_poses\\_mounting\\_toxic\\_risks#:\\~:text=A%20half%20century%20of%20rare,with%20a%20%E2%80%9Chigh%20concentration%E2%80%9D%20of for more information.  Capitalist firms have always destroyed the environment. They consider environmental degradation to be an externality. This is because they are in competition with each other for profits, and anyone who spares extra change for the environment will lose out. This is true even considering state regulation; different states are in competition with each other for their share of the global market. They won't pass any legislation that would imperil their share of the global market, even though it is precisely this legislation that is required to prevent catastrophe.  Our soil is degrading, disastrous storms are now commonplace, our food and water supply is contaminated with plastic permanently, the coral reefs are dying and most governments and corporations are still doing everything they can to make it worse. If climate change doesn't kill us, there's a long line of contenders willing to give it a shot.  \\---  I am not trying to be pessimistic. We can always try to make things better. The movements for climate justice, racial justice, etc. are promising and give me hope for a better future.  But putting our heads in the sand or thinking that things will turn out OK despite everything is counterproductive. We have to see the ugly truth if we want to make things better.","human_ref_B":"> Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the  likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall.  Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as  well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting  poverty and hunger rates even further.   Do you have any sources for this? After a quick search I found this article: https:\/\/www.who.int\/news\/item\/15-07-2019-world-hunger-is-still-not-going-down-after-three-years-and-obesity-is-still-growing-un-report which seems to contradict at least part of your point.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9646.0,"score_ratio":7.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtavaxz","c_root_id_B":"gtah8uk","created_at_utc_A":1617497729,"created_at_utc_B":1617489360,"score_A":23,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Well, \"better\" is a matter of perspective. I will assume you mean better in terms of a higher standard of living for the average person, with fewer major issues such as war, racism, economic crisis, environmental catastrophe, etc.  My opinion is that the next 50 years *could* be better, but only with a radical restructuring of the economy, which will likely take several revolutions. Given the fact that such a revolution is not on the horizon any time soon, I think it's most likely that the \"naysayers\" as you put it will turn out to be correct.  Now to respond to your points:  Point 1:  > It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.   What do you make of the nascent fascist movement in the US? At the moment, they aren't very organized and have essentially zero chance at getting near the halls of power. But many legislators are now practically open fascists (Marjorie Taylor Greene), and the conditions which created them (failure of the Left, neoliberal austerity, economic crisis) have not really gone away. If the fascists get into power, you can bet that all of this social progress will be gone.  Furthermore, the most recent recession has disproportionately impacted women and is likely to reinforce gender norms which previously were considered outdated. Women with partners who make enough money will likely be forced to stay home. Poorer women and women of color will likely be forced to do double duty caring for children and working simultaneously.  Furthermore, abortion is becoming more and more difficult to access: https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/politics-news\/report-details-wave-state-legislative-attempts-restrict-abortion-2021-n1262070. This trend is likely to intensify over time as the fight over child-rearing and who will pay for it intensifies.  Point 2:  > Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.   Life expectancy is trending downward in the USA: https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/us-life-expectancy-declined-for-third-year-in-a-row-2019-11  Science and medicine certainly can help people live better and longer lives, but it doesn't guarantee that. Current levels of wealth and income inequality are likely to make accessing decent medical care more and more difficult. Furthermore, the lack of decently paying jobs and stable housing is likely to shorten more people's lives despite any advances in medical care.  Furthermore, while the world might have handled this pandemic relatively well compared with the Spanish flu, it did extremely poorly in comparison to what it could have. For most governments across the West in particular, it was more important for people to continue to work and make profits for the corporations than it was to save people's lives.  Finally, a point that doesn't get mentioned very often is that this pandemic is actually a result of capitalism. Agribusiness destroys biodiversity, puts humans in contact with animals they never were before, and lines up hoards of genetically similar creatures next to each other. In other words, they create the ideal conditions for virulent and deadly pandemics. Current society has no way of addressing the root causes of this crisis.  To learn more, you can read https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Big-Farms-Make-Flu-Agribusiness\/dp\/1583675892.  Point 3:  > Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago.   This is similar to the era of the New Deal, actually. Outside of the U.S., everything except the Green New Deal has been achieved in generations past. How is this progress?  > What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past.   No one ever wants war. It just becomes inevitable. Leaders need to \"look tough\" to their populace. Competing businesses and powers demand access to other nations' resources, and refuse to back down. Both sides think the other will back down if they just push a little harder, but they never do. Eventually everyone finds themselves in full-scale war. And all of this happens despite each side knowing the enormous cost.  Point 4:  > But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden.   No, it hasn't. Education, housing, and medical care have all become more expensive since the 1970s. More people are unhoused now than at any point aside from the Great Depression. Even food prices are starting to rise.  Point 5:  > Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.   \"Green energy\" is mostly a myth. There is no form of energy that does not cause environmental devastation at the scale required to sustain current energy demand. See https:\/\/e360.yale.edu\/features\/boom\\_in\\_mining\\_rare\\_earths\\_poses\\_mounting\\_toxic\\_risks#:\\~:text=A%20half%20century%20of%20rare,with%20a%20%E2%80%9Chigh%20concentration%E2%80%9D%20of for more information.  Capitalist firms have always destroyed the environment. They consider environmental degradation to be an externality. This is because they are in competition with each other for profits, and anyone who spares extra change for the environment will lose out. This is true even considering state regulation; different states are in competition with each other for their share of the global market. They won't pass any legislation that would imperil their share of the global market, even though it is precisely this legislation that is required to prevent catastrophe.  Our soil is degrading, disastrous storms are now commonplace, our food and water supply is contaminated with plastic permanently, the coral reefs are dying and most governments and corporations are still doing everything they can to make it worse. If climate change doesn't kill us, there's a long line of contenders willing to give it a shot.  \\---  I am not trying to be pessimistic. We can always try to make things better. The movements for climate justice, racial justice, etc. are promising and give me hope for a better future.  But putting our heads in the sand or thinking that things will turn out OK despite everything is counterproductive. We have to see the ugly truth if we want to make things better.","human_ref_B":"Of course it will.  And as a people, earthlings will continue to bitch and moan regardless.  Perception still is a factor.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8369.0,"score_ratio":11.5}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtavaxz","c_root_id_B":"gtaq8on","created_at_utc_A":1617497729,"created_at_utc_B":1617494658,"score_A":23,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Well, \"better\" is a matter of perspective. I will assume you mean better in terms of a higher standard of living for the average person, with fewer major issues such as war, racism, economic crisis, environmental catastrophe, etc.  My opinion is that the next 50 years *could* be better, but only with a radical restructuring of the economy, which will likely take several revolutions. Given the fact that such a revolution is not on the horizon any time soon, I think it's most likely that the \"naysayers\" as you put it will turn out to be correct.  Now to respond to your points:  Point 1:  > It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.   What do you make of the nascent fascist movement in the US? At the moment, they aren't very organized and have essentially zero chance at getting near the halls of power. But many legislators are now practically open fascists (Marjorie Taylor Greene), and the conditions which created them (failure of the Left, neoliberal austerity, economic crisis) have not really gone away. If the fascists get into power, you can bet that all of this social progress will be gone.  Furthermore, the most recent recession has disproportionately impacted women and is likely to reinforce gender norms which previously were considered outdated. Women with partners who make enough money will likely be forced to stay home. Poorer women and women of color will likely be forced to do double duty caring for children and working simultaneously.  Furthermore, abortion is becoming more and more difficult to access: https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/politics-news\/report-details-wave-state-legislative-attempts-restrict-abortion-2021-n1262070. This trend is likely to intensify over time as the fight over child-rearing and who will pay for it intensifies.  Point 2:  > Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.   Life expectancy is trending downward in the USA: https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/us-life-expectancy-declined-for-third-year-in-a-row-2019-11  Science and medicine certainly can help people live better and longer lives, but it doesn't guarantee that. Current levels of wealth and income inequality are likely to make accessing decent medical care more and more difficult. Furthermore, the lack of decently paying jobs and stable housing is likely to shorten more people's lives despite any advances in medical care.  Furthermore, while the world might have handled this pandemic relatively well compared with the Spanish flu, it did extremely poorly in comparison to what it could have. For most governments across the West in particular, it was more important for people to continue to work and make profits for the corporations than it was to save people's lives.  Finally, a point that doesn't get mentioned very often is that this pandemic is actually a result of capitalism. Agribusiness destroys biodiversity, puts humans in contact with animals they never were before, and lines up hoards of genetically similar creatures next to each other. In other words, they create the ideal conditions for virulent and deadly pandemics. Current society has no way of addressing the root causes of this crisis.  To learn more, you can read https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Big-Farms-Make-Flu-Agribusiness\/dp\/1583675892.  Point 3:  > Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago.   This is similar to the era of the New Deal, actually. Outside of the U.S., everything except the Green New Deal has been achieved in generations past. How is this progress?  > What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past.   No one ever wants war. It just becomes inevitable. Leaders need to \"look tough\" to their populace. Competing businesses and powers demand access to other nations' resources, and refuse to back down. Both sides think the other will back down if they just push a little harder, but they never do. Eventually everyone finds themselves in full-scale war. And all of this happens despite each side knowing the enormous cost.  Point 4:  > But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden.   No, it hasn't. Education, housing, and medical care have all become more expensive since the 1970s. More people are unhoused now than at any point aside from the Great Depression. Even food prices are starting to rise.  Point 5:  > Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.   \"Green energy\" is mostly a myth. There is no form of energy that does not cause environmental devastation at the scale required to sustain current energy demand. See https:\/\/e360.yale.edu\/features\/boom\\_in\\_mining\\_rare\\_earths\\_poses\\_mounting\\_toxic\\_risks#:\\~:text=A%20half%20century%20of%20rare,with%20a%20%E2%80%9Chigh%20concentration%E2%80%9D%20of for more information.  Capitalist firms have always destroyed the environment. They consider environmental degradation to be an externality. This is because they are in competition with each other for profits, and anyone who spares extra change for the environment will lose out. This is true even considering state regulation; different states are in competition with each other for their share of the global market. They won't pass any legislation that would imperil their share of the global market, even though it is precisely this legislation that is required to prevent catastrophe.  Our soil is degrading, disastrous storms are now commonplace, our food and water supply is contaminated with plastic permanently, the coral reefs are dying and most governments and corporations are still doing everything they can to make it worse. If climate change doesn't kill us, there's a long line of contenders willing to give it a shot.  \\---  I am not trying to be pessimistic. We can always try to make things better. The movements for climate justice, racial justice, etc. are promising and give me hope for a better future.  But putting our heads in the sand or thinking that things will turn out OK despite everything is counterproductive. We have to see the ugly truth if we want to make things better.","human_ref_B":"Better for *whom*?  Attempts at defining a \"universalist\" policy -- at pretending that there is \"good policy\" and \"bad policy\" rather than \"interested policy,\" which is necessarily horse-traded -- have always been quite bizarre to me, to the extent that I think that by itself is a major warning sign and evidence of extreme institutional rot.  The limiting factor on political policycrafting is depth, not breadth; most people know some tidbits about most everything, but only a small fraction know a lot about anything, mostly things in which they have a personal stake. And so the emphasis, when evaluating any alleged \"mile-wide, inch-deep\" analysis, should be placed on the latter of those two criteria -- there's a lasting European notion that a political activist who tries to say a little about everything should be regarded as \"a Renaissance man, indolent and well-resourced enough able to dabble a little in each field\" instead of, well, a digging crew that has attempted to build the new reservoir a mile wide and an inch deep in a manner which has caused the new river dam to flood the streets, but this is really an aristocratic fiction. What a \"mile-wide, inch-deep\" approach says is \"the people who should be responsible for this decision don't know remotely enough to know why this isn't being done already, and are insulated from any information flow that would tell them.\"  Around half of your evidence is of policy *failures*. For example, as you noted, the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide -- not only nationwide, but *worldwide* -- with white students all over Eastern Europe doing their part to topple statues of old national figures who likely had never even seen a black person in order to get some social media cred. Yet what was the story with those?  * The movement focused specifically on the idea that cops in the US's managerialist policing system were specifically out to kill black people (\"black lives matter\"), when \"shootings per arrest\" are about the only thing that is markedly *lower* than the population norm for police interactions with black people -- essentially, the one upside of excessive use of force at the lower level is an immunizatory effect that means that cops get taken seriously more often. Thus, by looking at the one statistic that managerialist policing has already optimized for, and claiming that all focus should be on that statistic, meaningful change (even something basic like \"in line with Peelian principles, uniformed officers are to be treated as officers of the militia who can order an arrest but not effect it; this is reserved for bystanders\") is prevented. (Minor deviations will of course break out of the local minimum and \"cost black lives,\" and major deviations are of course Too Radical and probably secretly racist.) * Essentially all of the movement's goals focused on having \"more managerialism\" be the solution -- it hasn't failed, it can only be failed. For example, for the longest time it had seized upon the notion that \"social workers\" should ride around with the actual cops, in order to guarantee good jobs for people with social work degrees -- but what problem does this address? All enforcement of their directives still has to be in the form of physical power rather than community influence (both are intentionally isolated from the community at large by virtue of being accountable to external authority first and foremost, but the professional-class \"social workers\" would necessarily be even further removed from the policed communities than the working-class normal cops, who might at least cheer for the same sports team) or economic influence (ditto). It doesn't actually change any of the incentives involved or who can assert power in what way. If somebody disobeys, the cops still only have the options of 1) ignore it or 2) beating. * By the same token, most of the alleged discussion focused on the assumed motives of the arresting officer -- it was necessary that he was a Bad Person who was in a unique position to fail managerialism, yet it was also necessary that he was not so obviously a Bad Person that the focus is again back on the managerialist ideology as having given this guy a monopoly on power over others without even the screening it assumes will be sufficient, and so it was concluded that he was a Secret Racist. The idea that he was better than this *and* the idea that he was worse than this both did not warrant discussion; he would have done exactly what he did to any black person, but obviously to no one else.  This movement obviously serves useful goals for *some* people; for example, it ably secures sinecures for lots of \"overproduced elites\" who have gone to the effort of securing credentials that protect their elite status against any challenges to their merit. Even requiring the movement to provide a hazy articulation of meaningful policy change -- even forcing it to go \"half a mile wide, two inches deep\" -- showed this was evident. And yet since most people involved with this issue had no personal stake in it either way, they did not have the slightest reason to care about this.  This characterizes most attempts to solve problems: policy is something to be ignorantly inflicted on others for social status, rather than something pursued for even self-interested reasons. Such an approach obviously cannot solve problems and thus they will continue to compound -- as you have noted, we are, again, \"just about\" to achieve the Nixonian ideal of universal catastrophic healthcare coverage, and likely will continue to be \"just about\" to solve this problem for some time. Even \"easy\" solutions are disproportionately difficult to actually roll out; the mRNA vaccine was famously designed in just a few days and yet sat for the better part of a year being kicked around as a political football. More importantly, it wasn't even treated as an *important* political football -- the payoff simply appeared to be \"who gets to have their name in the headlines?\"  The present system combines all the worst aspects of dictatorship and democracy, has no Clausewitzian democratic foundation whatsoever, and is only saved by the fact that no other countries can achieve anything either. Large-scale war is quite clearly stopped not by some fearsome international response force or by international goodwill -- in plenty of cases, from Rwanda to Crimea to modern China, it has been shown that if you *want* to perpetrate a genocide or invade your neighbor, nobody will really stop you -- but by the fact that nobody knows what to do with their *own* country, much less someone else's.  This is all fine and good if everyone opts not to make a fuss equally, but the second that an *external* crisis happens, everything falls apart. COVID-19 was ultimately a very minor pandemic and it still showcased the system as being totally ineffective; \"trustworthy\" authorities routinely made recommendations (regarding masks and so forth) that showed that they were either not trustworthy or had no idea of what they were talking about, political figures routinely made decisions that were both clearly stupid and which should have been politically disadvantageous with no one relevant caring (e.g. \"let's send all these infected people to the nursing homes deliberately\") and so forth. Climate change is vastly overstated as an existential threat to a *moderately well-functioning* system but vastly understated as an existential threat to the *current* one, since it will produce lots of these.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3071.0,"score_ratio":11.5}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtaf0qo","c_root_id_B":"gtafw36","created_at_utc_A":1617488083,"created_at_utc_B":1617488583,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the  likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall.  Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as  well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting  poverty and hunger rates even further.   Do you have any sources for this? After a quick search I found this article: https:\/\/www.who.int\/news\/item\/15-07-2019-world-hunger-is-still-not-going-down-after-three-years-and-obesity-is-still-growing-un-report which seems to contradict at least part of your point.","human_ref_B":"I disagree that climate change isn't an existential threat. Studies estimate that more than 250,000 could die each year from climate change related causes. Before you say the numbers are overblown remember that when experts said that covid 19 could kill around 200,000 people in the US alone, you had people calling them idiots and alarmists. Today that number is 550,000. Also if Africa and the developing world for example continue on the trend of fast development or even increases it, climate change will be on steroids.  When you say scientific progress will make life better, I could also say that some emerging technologies risk taking us back to the cold war. Some include but not limited to Hypersonic waepons, surveillance states etc...  I like tha fact that you have an optimistic view of the future but let's not rest on our laurels","labels":0,"seconds_difference":500.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtaf0qo","c_root_id_B":"gtai57p","created_at_utc_A":1617488083,"created_at_utc_B":1617489875,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the  likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall.  Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as  well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting  poverty and hunger rates even further.   Do you have any sources for this? After a quick search I found this article: https:\/\/www.who.int\/news\/item\/15-07-2019-world-hunger-is-still-not-going-down-after-three-years-and-obesity-is-still-growing-un-report which seems to contradict at least part of your point.","human_ref_B":"Climate change has the capacity to reduce food supply.  We face the prospect of climate refugees, and wars over water.  It's not a far left problem, it's everyone's problem.   It's true we are rolling out more wind and solar power, but the worldwide use of fossil fuels is still growing, and shows no sign of slowing down.  https:\/\/ourworldindata.org\/uploads\/2018\/05\/global-fossil-fuel-consumption-768x542.png  \"humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community.\"  I don't believe many in sub-Saharan Africa would agree with this.  We have got richer and they have got poorer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1792.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtai57p","c_root_id_B":"gtah8uk","created_at_utc_A":1617489875,"created_at_utc_B":1617489360,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Climate change has the capacity to reduce food supply.  We face the prospect of climate refugees, and wars over water.  It's not a far left problem, it's everyone's problem.   It's true we are rolling out more wind and solar power, but the worldwide use of fossil fuels is still growing, and shows no sign of slowing down.  https:\/\/ourworldindata.org\/uploads\/2018\/05\/global-fossil-fuel-consumption-768x542.png  \"humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community.\"  I don't believe many in sub-Saharan Africa would agree with this.  We have got richer and they have got poorer.","human_ref_B":"Of course it will.  And as a people, earthlings will continue to bitch and moan regardless.  Perception still is a factor.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":515.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtavant","c_root_id_B":"gtaf0qo","created_at_utc_A":1617497724,"created_at_utc_B":1617488083,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"As a fellow American, I like your optimism. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I disagree with you. Humanity will not be better off in 50 years. Let me address each of your 5 reasons:  1. Social Progress: Yes, in some areas, like women\/minority\/LGBT rights, there has been significant social progress and greater equality. This is a good thing. But in many parts of the world and in many cultures, less progress has been made. And some places are moving backwards.  Also, there is still plenty of hatred, bigotry, prejudice and intolerance. Liberals and conservatives aren't very tolerant of each other. There is currently growing anti-male, anti-Christian, and anti-white sentiment on the left. In an increasingly multicultural society, not all groups are going to get along.  This could cause social problems in many western societies.  SJWs are very intolerant toward people who don\u2019t agree with them and will cancel people for not using the right pronouns or tweeting something \"offensive\" when they were 14 years old.   Political correctness and cancel culture has limited free speech. The media tries their best to divide us and keep us squabbling with each other. 2. Scientific and Medical Progress. I agree with you on this one. This is the one area where things will improve over the next 50 years. 3. Political Progress: I mean yes, overall the political spectrum is shifting more to the left. But is that progress? Either way, here is the main problem. Politicians don\u2019t care about the people they govern. Politicians care about their own political careers. They work for their party leaders, big corporate donors, and special interests. They are nearly all bought and paid for. They don\u2019t make decisions based on the best interest of the people they represent or that reflect the will of the people they represent.  In the US there is very little bipartisan cooperation. It\u2019s all about jockeying for power and they don\u2019t really care what happens to the \u201clittle people\u201d. Our political system is broken. 4. Economic Progress: The growing wealth disparity in the US is one of the biggest problems we face. The 1% is getting richer. The middle class is shrinking. The standard of living\/purchasing power of most Americans is going to be lower than that of previous generations. Most people will be less financially secure that our parents and grandparents were. 5. Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces: I agree with your take on Climate change. I think you are right. But there are many other dangers that humanity faces that are getting worse every day. Just to name a few: deforestation, air & water pollution, loss of biodiversity, water scarcity, overpopulation, toxins in the environment, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism. We are royally destroying our environment, but the only issue we ever hear about is Climate Change.  Like I said, I hope your right. But I think things are going to get worse over the next 50 years.","human_ref_B":"> Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the  likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall.  Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as  well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting  poverty and hunger rates even further.   Do you have any sources for this? After a quick search I found this article: https:\/\/www.who.int\/news\/item\/15-07-2019-world-hunger-is-still-not-going-down-after-three-years-and-obesity-is-still-growing-un-report which seems to contradict at least part of your point.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9641.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtavant","c_root_id_B":"gtah8uk","created_at_utc_A":1617497724,"created_at_utc_B":1617489360,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"As a fellow American, I like your optimism. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I disagree with you. Humanity will not be better off in 50 years. Let me address each of your 5 reasons:  1. Social Progress: Yes, in some areas, like women\/minority\/LGBT rights, there has been significant social progress and greater equality. This is a good thing. But in many parts of the world and in many cultures, less progress has been made. And some places are moving backwards.  Also, there is still plenty of hatred, bigotry, prejudice and intolerance. Liberals and conservatives aren't very tolerant of each other. There is currently growing anti-male, anti-Christian, and anti-white sentiment on the left. In an increasingly multicultural society, not all groups are going to get along.  This could cause social problems in many western societies.  SJWs are very intolerant toward people who don\u2019t agree with them and will cancel people for not using the right pronouns or tweeting something \"offensive\" when they were 14 years old.   Political correctness and cancel culture has limited free speech. The media tries their best to divide us and keep us squabbling with each other. 2. Scientific and Medical Progress. I agree with you on this one. This is the one area where things will improve over the next 50 years. 3. Political Progress: I mean yes, overall the political spectrum is shifting more to the left. But is that progress? Either way, here is the main problem. Politicians don\u2019t care about the people they govern. Politicians care about their own political careers. They work for their party leaders, big corporate donors, and special interests. They are nearly all bought and paid for. They don\u2019t make decisions based on the best interest of the people they represent or that reflect the will of the people they represent.  In the US there is very little bipartisan cooperation. It\u2019s all about jockeying for power and they don\u2019t really care what happens to the \u201clittle people\u201d. Our political system is broken. 4. Economic Progress: The growing wealth disparity in the US is one of the biggest problems we face. The 1% is getting richer. The middle class is shrinking. The standard of living\/purchasing power of most Americans is going to be lower than that of previous generations. Most people will be less financially secure that our parents and grandparents were. 5. Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces: I agree with your take on Climate change. I think you are right. But there are many other dangers that humanity faces that are getting worse every day. Just to name a few: deforestation, air & water pollution, loss of biodiversity, water scarcity, overpopulation, toxins in the environment, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism. We are royally destroying our environment, but the only issue we ever hear about is Climate Change.  Like I said, I hope your right. But I think things are going to get worse over the next 50 years.","human_ref_B":"Of course it will.  And as a people, earthlings will continue to bitch and moan regardless.  Perception still is a factor.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8364.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"mji63l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The Next 50 Years of Humanity Will Be Better Than the Previous 50 Years Nowadays, it's a pretty common opinion among younger millennials that the world is, to put it gently, fucked. Many of them hold the view that climate change will soon cause an irreversible decline in quality of life. Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of the rich and powerful while making it increasingly difficult for the lower and middle classes to afford life's necessities. And it will be nearly impossible, not to mention immoral, to raise and start a family in this messed up, increasingly unjust world.  I believe these naysayers have it backwards. Humanity is constantly progressing, and the next 50 years will be better\u2014perhaps much better\u2014than the last 50 years.   First, a few notes:  * As an American, I apologize for my primarily American-centric point of view. I believe my points generally hold true for humanity as a whole, but I am most knowledgeable about how these issues are playing out in American life, so I will primarily view them through that lens. * I am progressive\/center-left in my politics. As my post is generally replying to the views of *other* progressives, it assumes that progressive policies are a good thing, and that, for the most part, the more progressive the policy the better. It's totally reasonable to disagree with my view on this, but I'm not really here to engage in a political debate of Left vs. Right. * How can you change my view? Just give me a solid argument that there's a significant likelihood of the next 50 years *not* being as good as the last 50. To do this, you should probably explain either (a) why I am wrong about the beneficial trends listed below, (b) why these trends are likely to reverse in the next 50 years, or (c) why these trends, good as they are, simply don't tell the whole story, and that other factors are simply bad enough to outweigh these positive trends.  Here are the five primary reasons for my view:  (1) **Social Progress.** Humanity's continuing social progress is undeniable. In the modern era, each succeeding generation has been more tolerant and accepting than the one before. Racial bigotry is still an enormous problem in our society, but it has been in rapid decline since the 1960s. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are gaining increasing acceptance, so much that they have now become mainstream (e.g., the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide, as opposed to being contained to a specific community). We scrutinize racial discrimination moreso today than at any point in history. No longer are we only concerned with *de jure* discrimination, but we examine and prosecute instances of *de facto* discrimination with increasing zealousness. Terms such as \"implicit\" and \"systemic\" racism are used by everyday people, which is certainly not the case in the past. Affirmative action has become a routine college admissions practice, and more and more people of color are being elected or appointed to political office.  This progress is not limited to racial issues. The LGBTQ+ movement has won widespread acceptance in at least some of its goals. Today, a same-sex couple has a constitutional right to marriage in all 50 of the United States. What's more, this sweeping change has been largely accepted by the vast swath of society\u2014conservatives really no longer seriously contest this point. Mental health is no longer as much of a taboo and a stigma as it once was, and therapy is becoming normalized. Legal access to medical and recreational marijuana, among other drugs, is increasing each year. The #MeToo Movement has shed light on sexual assault and harassment in a way never seen before, holding many powerful men to account for perhaps the first time in their lives. Access to an abortion remains a constitutionally protected right, despite some attempts to limit or dismantle it, and the Democratic Party has becoming increasingly interested in ensuring legal access to abortions.  It's undeniable that the world of 2021 is a much more socially progressive place than the world of 1971. It seems inconceivable that this trend would not continue over the next 50 years, especially as younger generations age up and older generations, which often hold less-progressive social views, gradually die out.  (2) **Scientific and Medical Progress.** The COVID pandemic wrought unspeakable hardship on society, but it could have been so much worse if not for the miracle of modern medicine. We were able to quickly develop and approve a slate of vaccines to fight the disease. Today, little more than a year after the pandemic began in the United States, we now have more than 30% of the population with at least one dose of the vaccine, with millions more being vaccinated per day. This is a far cry from the unstoppable terrors of past pandemics, such as the Spanish Flu, which society simply had to wait out until the virus eventually \"burned itself out\" from the vast amounts of death and infection.  Modern medicine has allowed people today to live longer, healthier, more productive, and happier lives than at any point in human history.  We will continue to expand the mRNA technology used to develop some of the COVID vaccines. We will continue to pour billions of dollars into researching treatments for other diseases, such as cancer. We will continue to get better and better at fighting disease and pain. Science is amazing, and it will only continue to amaze us in the years to come.  (3) **Political Progress.** This point overlaps a bit with Point (1). Politicians today care more about equality and equity than those of generations past. Leftist ideas, like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal, would have been anathema just a few decades ago. Now they are supported by increasing numbers of Americans. The Overton Window is shifting, and it's shifting in a much more progressive direction. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he did not support a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But in 2020, Joe Biden\u2014a seemingly more middle-of-the-road politician\u2014does. Biden also supports a $15 minimum wage as well as enormous expansions of the welfare state and government programs in general.   With each new generation, ambitious progressive policies become increasingly attainable. At some point in the next 50 years, the United States will almost certainly have a more equitable and affordable healthcare system than it does today. It's really only a matter of time.   What's more, large scale wars have become a thing of the past. Because of (1) nuclear proliferation and mutually-assured destruction, (2) the increasing interconnectedness of global trade, and (3) American and NATO military supremacy, large nations just don't feel like fighting as many wars as they did in generations past. Combat deaths are decreasing, and so too are violent crime statistics. Despite a recent uptick during the pandemic, violent crime has been steadily decreasing throughout the United States with each passing decade. The upshot of all of this is that you are much less likely to die by violent means today than at any point in history. These trends will continue, and death by violence will be even more rare in 2071 than it is today.  (4) **Economic Progress.** Capitalism certainly has its downsides. It has made the rich even richer. But it has also made life much more affordable for the poor and downtrodden. Capitalism allows the formation of corporations of an enormous scale, like Amazon and Wal-Mart. These corporations are successful because they are able to undercut the prices of their competitors. Wal-Mart prices are dirt cheap, and their stores are found in many places across the United States, including in much poorer and\/or rural communities that simply couldn't support a more expensive retailer like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or Jewel-Osco. Yes, economies of scale make the people at the top much richer than they would otherwise be. But they serve enormous, and underrated, benefits to those with less means.  Additionally, capitalism has allowed the mass production of food the likes of which the world has never seen. Child hunger is in free fall. Industrialization is putting the worldwide poverty rate in freefall, as well. This process will only continue over the next 50 years, cutting poverty and hunger rates even further.  (5) **Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces**. Now, to address climate change. Climate change is real, and its consequences are downright scary. But it is not the existential threat that those on the far left make it out to be. It is an enormous problem that will make life more difficult for many. But it is a problem that we can ameliorate to an extent that it does not severely threaten the quality of life of most people, even if we cannot entirely prevent it from occurring.  We're already seeing signs of this. The Paris Climate Accords of 2016 are a monument to how seriously world leaders are taking the issue, and how eager they are to fashion political solutions. Yes, the U.S. did briefly leave the Accords under the Trump administration, but the U.S. quickly re-entered under Biden.   Moreover, capitalism, the foe that made climate change as much of a threat as it is today, may actually save us from the monster it created. Green energy is becoming more and more profitable. Companies in various industries see a profit-making opportunity, and they are jumping on it. Car manufacturers are building more and more electric vehicles. More and more wind farms and solar panels are being constructed each and every year. The number of people employed in the \"green energy\" sector dwarfs the number employed in the fossil fuel industry. The transition away from oil is already well underway.  And even *if* we do no more to stop climate change than we are currently doing, I would argue that points (1) through (4) *still* outweigh any of the quality-of-life harms that climate change will cause in the next 50 years.   \\--------  In conclusion, I believe the next 50 years will proceed much as the last 50 years have, with humanity continuing its long history of gradual progress into a more beneficent worldwide community. The next 50 years will be better than the last 50 years. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"gtavant","c_root_id_B":"gtaq8on","created_at_utc_A":1617497724,"created_at_utc_B":1617494658,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"As a fellow American, I like your optimism. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I disagree with you. Humanity will not be better off in 50 years. Let me address each of your 5 reasons:  1. Social Progress: Yes, in some areas, like women\/minority\/LGBT rights, there has been significant social progress and greater equality. This is a good thing. But in many parts of the world and in many cultures, less progress has been made. And some places are moving backwards.  Also, there is still plenty of hatred, bigotry, prejudice and intolerance. Liberals and conservatives aren't very tolerant of each other. There is currently growing anti-male, anti-Christian, and anti-white sentiment on the left. In an increasingly multicultural society, not all groups are going to get along.  This could cause social problems in many western societies.  SJWs are very intolerant toward people who don\u2019t agree with them and will cancel people for not using the right pronouns or tweeting something \"offensive\" when they were 14 years old.   Political correctness and cancel culture has limited free speech. The media tries their best to divide us and keep us squabbling with each other. 2. Scientific and Medical Progress. I agree with you on this one. This is the one area where things will improve over the next 50 years. 3. Political Progress: I mean yes, overall the political spectrum is shifting more to the left. But is that progress? Either way, here is the main problem. Politicians don\u2019t care about the people they govern. Politicians care about their own political careers. They work for their party leaders, big corporate donors, and special interests. They are nearly all bought and paid for. They don\u2019t make decisions based on the best interest of the people they represent or that reflect the will of the people they represent.  In the US there is very little bipartisan cooperation. It\u2019s all about jockeying for power and they don\u2019t really care what happens to the \u201clittle people\u201d. Our political system is broken. 4. Economic Progress: The growing wealth disparity in the US is one of the biggest problems we face. The 1% is getting richer. The middle class is shrinking. The standard of living\/purchasing power of most Americans is going to be lower than that of previous generations. Most people will be less financially secure that our parents and grandparents were. 5. Overstating the Dangers Humanity Faces: I agree with your take on Climate change. I think you are right. But there are many other dangers that humanity faces that are getting worse every day. Just to name a few: deforestation, air & water pollution, loss of biodiversity, water scarcity, overpopulation, toxins in the environment, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism. We are royally destroying our environment, but the only issue we ever hear about is Climate Change.  Like I said, I hope your right. But I think things are going to get worse over the next 50 years.","human_ref_B":"Better for *whom*?  Attempts at defining a \"universalist\" policy -- at pretending that there is \"good policy\" and \"bad policy\" rather than \"interested policy,\" which is necessarily horse-traded -- have always been quite bizarre to me, to the extent that I think that by itself is a major warning sign and evidence of extreme institutional rot.  The limiting factor on political policycrafting is depth, not breadth; most people know some tidbits about most everything, but only a small fraction know a lot about anything, mostly things in which they have a personal stake. And so the emphasis, when evaluating any alleged \"mile-wide, inch-deep\" analysis, should be placed on the latter of those two criteria -- there's a lasting European notion that a political activist who tries to say a little about everything should be regarded as \"a Renaissance man, indolent and well-resourced enough able to dabble a little in each field\" instead of, well, a digging crew that has attempted to build the new reservoir a mile wide and an inch deep in a manner which has caused the new river dam to flood the streets, but this is really an aristocratic fiction. What a \"mile-wide, inch-deep\" approach says is \"the people who should be responsible for this decision don't know remotely enough to know why this isn't being done already, and are insulated from any information flow that would tell them.\"  Around half of your evidence is of policy *failures*. For example, as you noted, the George Floyd protests occurred nationwide -- not only nationwide, but *worldwide* -- with white students all over Eastern Europe doing their part to topple statues of old national figures who likely had never even seen a black person in order to get some social media cred. Yet what was the story with those?  * The movement focused specifically on the idea that cops in the US's managerialist policing system were specifically out to kill black people (\"black lives matter\"), when \"shootings per arrest\" are about the only thing that is markedly *lower* than the population norm for police interactions with black people -- essentially, the one upside of excessive use of force at the lower level is an immunizatory effect that means that cops get taken seriously more often. Thus, by looking at the one statistic that managerialist policing has already optimized for, and claiming that all focus should be on that statistic, meaningful change (even something basic like \"in line with Peelian principles, uniformed officers are to be treated as officers of the militia who can order an arrest but not effect it; this is reserved for bystanders\") is prevented. (Minor deviations will of course break out of the local minimum and \"cost black lives,\" and major deviations are of course Too Radical and probably secretly racist.) * Essentially all of the movement's goals focused on having \"more managerialism\" be the solution -- it hasn't failed, it can only be failed. For example, for the longest time it had seized upon the notion that \"social workers\" should ride around with the actual cops, in order to guarantee good jobs for people with social work degrees -- but what problem does this address? All enforcement of their directives still has to be in the form of physical power rather than community influence (both are intentionally isolated from the community at large by virtue of being accountable to external authority first and foremost, but the professional-class \"social workers\" would necessarily be even further removed from the policed communities than the working-class normal cops, who might at least cheer for the same sports team) or economic influence (ditto). It doesn't actually change any of the incentives involved or who can assert power in what way. If somebody disobeys, the cops still only have the options of 1) ignore it or 2) beating. * By the same token, most of the alleged discussion focused on the assumed motives of the arresting officer -- it was necessary that he was a Bad Person who was in a unique position to fail managerialism, yet it was also necessary that he was not so obviously a Bad Person that the focus is again back on the managerialist ideology as having given this guy a monopoly on power over others without even the screening it assumes will be sufficient, and so it was concluded that he was a Secret Racist. The idea that he was better than this *and* the idea that he was worse than this both did not warrant discussion; he would have done exactly what he did to any black person, but obviously to no one else.  This movement obviously serves useful goals for *some* people; for example, it ably secures sinecures for lots of \"overproduced elites\" who have gone to the effort of securing credentials that protect their elite status against any challenges to their merit. Even requiring the movement to provide a hazy articulation of meaningful policy change -- even forcing it to go \"half a mile wide, two inches deep\" -- showed this was evident. And yet since most people involved with this issue had no personal stake in it either way, they did not have the slightest reason to care about this.  This characterizes most attempts to solve problems: policy is something to be ignorantly inflicted on others for social status, rather than something pursued for even self-interested reasons. Such an approach obviously cannot solve problems and thus they will continue to compound -- as you have noted, we are, again, \"just about\" to achieve the Nixonian ideal of universal catastrophic healthcare coverage, and likely will continue to be \"just about\" to solve this problem for some time. Even \"easy\" solutions are disproportionately difficult to actually roll out; the mRNA vaccine was famously designed in just a few days and yet sat for the better part of a year being kicked around as a political football. More importantly, it wasn't even treated as an *important* political football -- the payoff simply appeared to be \"who gets to have their name in the headlines?\"  The present system combines all the worst aspects of dictatorship and democracy, has no Clausewitzian democratic foundation whatsoever, and is only saved by the fact that no other countries can achieve anything either. Large-scale war is quite clearly stopped not by some fearsome international response force or by international goodwill -- in plenty of cases, from Rwanda to Crimea to modern China, it has been shown that if you *want* to perpetrate a genocide or invade your neighbor, nobody will really stop you -- but by the fact that nobody knows what to do with their *own* country, much less someone else's.  This is all fine and good if everyone opts not to make a fuss equally, but the second that an *external* crisis happens, everything falls apart. COVID-19 was ultimately a very minor pandemic and it still showcased the system as being totally ineffective; \"trustworthy\" authorities routinely made recommendations (regarding masks and so forth) that showed that they were either not trustworthy or had no idea of what they were talking about, political figures routinely made decisions that were both clearly stupid and which should have been politically disadvantageous with no one relevant caring (e.g. \"let's send all these infected people to the nursing homes deliberately\") and so forth. Climate change is vastly overstated as an existential threat to a *moderately well-functioning* system but vastly understated as an existential threat to the *current* one, since it will produce lots of these.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3066.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvltgxz","c_root_id_B":"hvlgrxc","created_at_utc_A":1644005156,"created_at_utc_B":1644000385,"score_A":167,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"I think you are looking for students being taught media literacy. Scientific literature requires a certain level of understanding of the subject matter. Like people from different disciplines of science may not even be able to read the material from each other's fields. There is quite a bit of a prerequisite that must be met to teach a person how to read scientific literature. It may not be feasible to implement this at the high school level.","human_ref_B":"We had this throughout several grades, in middle school and high school. But since this anecdotal evidence alone will not convince you, here's the science education framework for my state. It states...  >Students are asked to construct and revise explanations and claims based on valid and reliable\r evidence and apply scientific reasoning to evaluate complex real-world problems such as the effects of\r human activity on biodiversity and ecosystem health. Students must be able to find and interpret scientific literature to compare, integrate, and evaluate sources and communicate phenomena...  And this is just my state. I'm sure if you look at other states, you will see similar requirements in their frameworks","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4771.0,"score_ratio":2.9821428571}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvltgxz","c_root_id_B":"hvlk3kg","created_at_utc_A":1644005156,"created_at_utc_B":1644001627,"score_A":167,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"I think you are looking for students being taught media literacy. Scientific literature requires a certain level of understanding of the subject matter. Like people from different disciplines of science may not even be able to read the material from each other's fields. There is quite a bit of a prerequisite that must be met to teach a person how to read scientific literature. It may not be feasible to implement this at the high school level.","human_ref_B":"We have problems teaching students what fractions are. You\u2019d probably only really be able to teach honors level students how to read research papers, but they\u2019d already learn\/aren\u2019t distrusting of the science in the first place. We also literally had headlines this week of southern schools banning books; even if you were to somehow teach students how to read science literature, politicians would just ban it from the curriculum if it negatively affected them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3529.0,"score_ratio":5.5666666667}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvlfnwn","c_root_id_B":"hvltgxz","created_at_utc_A":1643999976,"created_at_utc_B":1644005156,"score_A":5,"score_B":167,"human_ref_A":"Granted I was in the GT program, but they Used to teach this. I have no idea why they stopped.","human_ref_B":"I think you are looking for students being taught media literacy. Scientific literature requires a certain level of understanding of the subject matter. Like people from different disciplines of science may not even be able to read the material from each other's fields. There is quite a bit of a prerequisite that must be met to teach a person how to read scientific literature. It may not be feasible to implement this at the high school level.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5180.0,"score_ratio":33.4}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvltgxz","c_root_id_B":"hvlm3lp","created_at_utc_A":1644005156,"created_at_utc_B":1644002388,"score_A":167,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think you are looking for students being taught media literacy. Scientific literature requires a certain level of understanding of the subject matter. Like people from different disciplines of science may not even be able to read the material from each other's fields. There is quite a bit of a prerequisite that must be met to teach a person how to read scientific literature. It may not be feasible to implement this at the high school level.","human_ref_B":">Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I appreciate the idea, but I feel like if an insufficiently rigorous or unscrupulous researcher can't convince the average high schooler of the validity of their paper\/claims, I'm having trouble thinking of what would motivate them to try to get it published in the first place.   I do think students should be exposed to those sorts of papers but I'd come at it from a different angle. I think trying to teach how to read scientific papers would either result in overconfidence in the degree to which they understand the key ideas, or they'd have a sort of vaguely memorised assortment of concepts lacking the right sort of context to internalise it properly.   I'd say encourage students to read those papers and try to familiarise themselves with the format on their own, and only really try to teach them anything if they have specific questions or make clear mistakes. Have them using conflicting papers to debate each-other and in no time they'll figure out enough on their own to criticise their opponents.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2768.0,"score_ratio":55.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvlgrxc","c_root_id_B":"hvlfnwn","created_at_utc_A":1644000385,"created_at_utc_B":1643999976,"score_A":56,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"We had this throughout several grades, in middle school and high school. But since this anecdotal evidence alone will not convince you, here's the science education framework for my state. It states...  >Students are asked to construct and revise explanations and claims based on valid and reliable\r evidence and apply scientific reasoning to evaluate complex real-world problems such as the effects of\r human activity on biodiversity and ecosystem health. Students must be able to find and interpret scientific literature to compare, integrate, and evaluate sources and communicate phenomena...  And this is just my state. I'm sure if you look at other states, you will see similar requirements in their frameworks","human_ref_B":"Granted I was in the GT program, but they Used to teach this. I have no idea why they stopped.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":409.0,"score_ratio":11.2}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvlfnwn","c_root_id_B":"hvlk3kg","created_at_utc_A":1643999976,"created_at_utc_B":1644001627,"score_A":5,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"Granted I was in the GT program, but they Used to teach this. I have no idea why they stopped.","human_ref_B":"We have problems teaching students what fractions are. You\u2019d probably only really be able to teach honors level students how to read research papers, but they\u2019d already learn\/aren\u2019t distrusting of the science in the first place. We also literally had headlines this week of southern schools banning books; even if you were to somehow teach students how to read science literature, politicians would just ban it from the curriculum if it negatively affected them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1651.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvm48q9","c_root_id_B":"hvm5wch","created_at_utc_A":1644009235,"created_at_utc_B":1644009865,"score_A":16,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"I feel a significant factor that you have overlooked is that even if these children could access and read the papers, none of them would be able to understand the content, nor would they be able to recognise the difference between a good paper and a not so good paper. They might know what a paper is but it would end there. You mention media, but there are also papers out there which are just as manipulative, or indeed manipulated (see retractionwatch). Knowing what a t-test is useless if a child is looking up papers just to confirm their bias, especially if they can\u2019t tell if something looks fishy.  Experts are the ones who can understand and interpret the data. They are the ones who can be trusted to communicate. Perhaps the blame and the solution both lie with the media.","human_ref_B":"Being able to read, understand, interpret, and contextualize academic papers is a skill focused on in research based university for a reason.  It\u2019s difficult (many struggle at the undergrad level; and even the graduate level depending on the field), academic papers are written by and for experts in the field; and it\u2019s wholly inadequate for coming to an understanding of science as it relates to how they would apply it (in their life or politics).  Summaries of scientific consensus written to be accessible to non-experts are what are applicable at any level but research or professional application; and teaching students how to access, read, understand, criticize, and contextualize scientific information at this level is difficult enough and more applicable to their needs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":630.0,"score_ratio":1.625}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvlfnwn","c_root_id_B":"hvm5wch","created_at_utc_A":1643999976,"created_at_utc_B":1644009865,"score_A":5,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"Granted I was in the GT program, but they Used to teach this. I have no idea why they stopped.","human_ref_B":"Being able to read, understand, interpret, and contextualize academic papers is a skill focused on in research based university for a reason.  It\u2019s difficult (many struggle at the undergrad level; and even the graduate level depending on the field), academic papers are written by and for experts in the field; and it\u2019s wholly inadequate for coming to an understanding of science as it relates to how they would apply it (in their life or politics).  Summaries of scientific consensus written to be accessible to non-experts are what are applicable at any level but research or professional application; and teaching students how to access, read, understand, criticize, and contextualize scientific information at this level is difficult enough and more applicable to their needs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9889.0,"score_ratio":5.2}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvm5wch","c_root_id_B":"hvlm3lp","created_at_utc_A":1644009865,"created_at_utc_B":1644002388,"score_A":26,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Being able to read, understand, interpret, and contextualize academic papers is a skill focused on in research based university for a reason.  It\u2019s difficult (many struggle at the undergrad level; and even the graduate level depending on the field), academic papers are written by and for experts in the field; and it\u2019s wholly inadequate for coming to an understanding of science as it relates to how they would apply it (in their life or politics).  Summaries of scientific consensus written to be accessible to non-experts are what are applicable at any level but research or professional application; and teaching students how to access, read, understand, criticize, and contextualize scientific information at this level is difficult enough and more applicable to their needs.","human_ref_B":">Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I appreciate the idea, but I feel like if an insufficiently rigorous or unscrupulous researcher can't convince the average high schooler of the validity of their paper\/claims, I'm having trouble thinking of what would motivate them to try to get it published in the first place.   I do think students should be exposed to those sorts of papers but I'd come at it from a different angle. I think trying to teach how to read scientific papers would either result in overconfidence in the degree to which they understand the key ideas, or they'd have a sort of vaguely memorised assortment of concepts lacking the right sort of context to internalise it properly.   I'd say encourage students to read those papers and try to familiarise themselves with the format on their own, and only really try to teach them anything if they have specific questions or make clear mistakes. Have them using conflicting papers to debate each-other and in no time they'll figure out enough on their own to criticise their opponents.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7477.0,"score_ratio":8.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvm48q9","c_root_id_B":"hvlfnwn","created_at_utc_A":1644009235,"created_at_utc_B":1643999976,"score_A":16,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I feel a significant factor that you have overlooked is that even if these children could access and read the papers, none of them would be able to understand the content, nor would they be able to recognise the difference between a good paper and a not so good paper. They might know what a paper is but it would end there. You mention media, but there are also papers out there which are just as manipulative, or indeed manipulated (see retractionwatch). Knowing what a t-test is useless if a child is looking up papers just to confirm their bias, especially if they can\u2019t tell if something looks fishy.  Experts are the ones who can understand and interpret the data. They are the ones who can be trusted to communicate. Perhaps the blame and the solution both lie with the media.","human_ref_B":"Granted I was in the GT program, but they Used to teach this. I have no idea why they stopped.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9259.0,"score_ratio":3.2}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvm48q9","c_root_id_B":"hvlm3lp","created_at_utc_A":1644009235,"created_at_utc_B":1644002388,"score_A":16,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I feel a significant factor that you have overlooked is that even if these children could access and read the papers, none of them would be able to understand the content, nor would they be able to recognise the difference between a good paper and a not so good paper. They might know what a paper is but it would end there. You mention media, but there are also papers out there which are just as manipulative, or indeed manipulated (see retractionwatch). Knowing what a t-test is useless if a child is looking up papers just to confirm their bias, especially if they can\u2019t tell if something looks fishy.  Experts are the ones who can understand and interpret the data. They are the ones who can be trusted to communicate. Perhaps the blame and the solution both lie with the media.","human_ref_B":">Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I appreciate the idea, but I feel like if an insufficiently rigorous or unscrupulous researcher can't convince the average high schooler of the validity of their paper\/claims, I'm having trouble thinking of what would motivate them to try to get it published in the first place.   I do think students should be exposed to those sorts of papers but I'd come at it from a different angle. I think trying to teach how to read scientific papers would either result in overconfidence in the degree to which they understand the key ideas, or they'd have a sort of vaguely memorised assortment of concepts lacking the right sort of context to internalise it properly.   I'd say encourage students to read those papers and try to familiarise themselves with the format on their own, and only really try to teach them anything if they have specific questions or make clear mistakes. Have them using conflicting papers to debate each-other and in no time they'll figure out enough on their own to criticise their opponents.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6847.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvm9bod","c_root_id_B":"hvmip0o","created_at_utc_A":1644011172,"created_at_utc_B":1644014879,"score_A":11,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Hey, A+ for getting a fresh topic Friday through.   However, one of the issues I can think of with doing this is that the statistics in a lot of scientific papers is more dense than most high schoolers would be able to interpret. Without a solid grounding in statistics then it is hard to understand if what the paper is telling you is truly profound. In fact, I have noticed a lot of pop science writing falls into this trap, they will release some grabbing headline about some study which is probably really impressive, but without really understanding the baselines at play things like \"44% more,\" or whatever are kind of meaningless.   Here is one good example, if you look up Harvard's gun violence research, which is well regarded - you will run into a stat that says something like \"A gun in the home increases the risk of dying by gunshot by 4x.\" OH MY GOSH! Right? Except, you don't know what the baseline is, which is miniscule when compared to the number of people and guns in the USA. 4x a small number is still a pretty small number. So what is your actual risk of death by gunshot, very low, what is it after you introduce a gun into the house - still extremely low.","human_ref_B":"Recent study... >50% of Baltimore high school students can only read at an elementary-school level.  Good ambition, but far from reality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3707.0,"score_ratio":1.4545454545}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvlfnwn","c_root_id_B":"hvmip0o","created_at_utc_A":1643999976,"created_at_utc_B":1644014879,"score_A":5,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Granted I was in the GT program, but they Used to teach this. I have no idea why they stopped.","human_ref_B":"Recent study... >50% of Baltimore high school students can only read at an elementary-school level.  Good ambition, but far from reality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14903.0,"score_ratio":3.2}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvlm3lp","c_root_id_B":"hvmip0o","created_at_utc_A":1644002388,"created_at_utc_B":1644014879,"score_A":3,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":">Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I appreciate the idea, but I feel like if an insufficiently rigorous or unscrupulous researcher can't convince the average high schooler of the validity of their paper\/claims, I'm having trouble thinking of what would motivate them to try to get it published in the first place.   I do think students should be exposed to those sorts of papers but I'd come at it from a different angle. I think trying to teach how to read scientific papers would either result in overconfidence in the degree to which they understand the key ideas, or they'd have a sort of vaguely memorised assortment of concepts lacking the right sort of context to internalise it properly.   I'd say encourage students to read those papers and try to familiarise themselves with the format on their own, and only really try to teach them anything if they have specific questions or make clear mistakes. Have them using conflicting papers to debate each-other and in no time they'll figure out enough on their own to criticise their opponents.","human_ref_B":"Recent study... >50% of Baltimore high school students can only read at an elementary-school level.  Good ambition, but far from reality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12491.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvmdvrn","c_root_id_B":"hvmip0o","created_at_utc_A":1644012944,"created_at_utc_B":1644014879,"score_A":3,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Education is gate kept by higher society. This is why tik tok is a free app, yet scientific publications have to be paid for.","human_ref_B":"Recent study... >50% of Baltimore high school students can only read at an elementary-school level.  Good ambition, but far from reality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1935.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvm9bod","c_root_id_B":"hvlfnwn","created_at_utc_A":1644011172,"created_at_utc_B":1643999976,"score_A":11,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Hey, A+ for getting a fresh topic Friday through.   However, one of the issues I can think of with doing this is that the statistics in a lot of scientific papers is more dense than most high schoolers would be able to interpret. Without a solid grounding in statistics then it is hard to understand if what the paper is telling you is truly profound. In fact, I have noticed a lot of pop science writing falls into this trap, they will release some grabbing headline about some study which is probably really impressive, but without really understanding the baselines at play things like \"44% more,\" or whatever are kind of meaningless.   Here is one good example, if you look up Harvard's gun violence research, which is well regarded - you will run into a stat that says something like \"A gun in the home increases the risk of dying by gunshot by 4x.\" OH MY GOSH! Right? Except, you don't know what the baseline is, which is miniscule when compared to the number of people and guns in the USA. 4x a small number is still a pretty small number. So what is your actual risk of death by gunshot, very low, what is it after you introduce a gun into the house - still extremely low.","human_ref_B":"Granted I was in the GT program, but they Used to teach this. I have no idea why they stopped.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11196.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvm9bod","c_root_id_B":"hvlm3lp","created_at_utc_A":1644011172,"created_at_utc_B":1644002388,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Hey, A+ for getting a fresh topic Friday through.   However, one of the issues I can think of with doing this is that the statistics in a lot of scientific papers is more dense than most high schoolers would be able to interpret. Without a solid grounding in statistics then it is hard to understand if what the paper is telling you is truly profound. In fact, I have noticed a lot of pop science writing falls into this trap, they will release some grabbing headline about some study which is probably really impressive, but without really understanding the baselines at play things like \"44% more,\" or whatever are kind of meaningless.   Here is one good example, if you look up Harvard's gun violence research, which is well regarded - you will run into a stat that says something like \"A gun in the home increases the risk of dying by gunshot by 4x.\" OH MY GOSH! Right? Except, you don't know what the baseline is, which is miniscule when compared to the number of people and guns in the USA. 4x a small number is still a pretty small number. So what is your actual risk of death by gunshot, very low, what is it after you introduce a gun into the house - still extremely low.","human_ref_B":">Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I appreciate the idea, but I feel like if an insufficiently rigorous or unscrupulous researcher can't convince the average high schooler of the validity of their paper\/claims, I'm having trouble thinking of what would motivate them to try to get it published in the first place.   I do think students should be exposed to those sorts of papers but I'd come at it from a different angle. I think trying to teach how to read scientific papers would either result in overconfidence in the degree to which they understand the key ideas, or they'd have a sort of vaguely memorised assortment of concepts lacking the right sort of context to internalise it properly.   I'd say encourage students to read those papers and try to familiarise themselves with the format on their own, and only really try to teach them anything if they have specific questions or make clear mistakes. Have them using conflicting papers to debate each-other and in no time they'll figure out enough on their own to criticise their opponents.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8784.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvlfnwn","c_root_id_B":"hvmuhy8","created_at_utc_A":1643999976,"created_at_utc_B":1644019850,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Granted I was in the GT program, but they Used to teach this. I have no idea why they stopped.","human_ref_B":"Ex-PhD student here.  You're missing something important: That scientific research is basically a pyramid scheme built upon academics fighting over a miniscule amount of money and lot of young students roped into performing slave labor. Scientists can be really creative with how they show only the relevant data to get something to be worth publishing. Research group leaders need to publish a lot, and often, just to keep their names relevant and their labs afloat. You're expecting younger students to read something that is most likely to be a piece of shit?  If a paper was worth reading, then a major publisher like Nature or Science would have written features about them intended for the general public.  Oh, and PhD students everywhere just read the abstract, look at the pretty pictures, go straight to the conclusion. If it's interesting, *maybe* they'll read the methods section.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19874.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvmuhy8","c_root_id_B":"hvlm3lp","created_at_utc_A":1644019850,"created_at_utc_B":1644002388,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Ex-PhD student here.  You're missing something important: That scientific research is basically a pyramid scheme built upon academics fighting over a miniscule amount of money and lot of young students roped into performing slave labor. Scientists can be really creative with how they show only the relevant data to get something to be worth publishing. Research group leaders need to publish a lot, and often, just to keep their names relevant and their labs afloat. You're expecting younger students to read something that is most likely to be a piece of shit?  If a paper was worth reading, then a major publisher like Nature or Science would have written features about them intended for the general public.  Oh, and PhD students everywhere just read the abstract, look at the pretty pictures, go straight to the conclusion. If it's interesting, *maybe* they'll read the methods section.","human_ref_B":">Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I appreciate the idea, but I feel like if an insufficiently rigorous or unscrupulous researcher can't convince the average high schooler of the validity of their paper\/claims, I'm having trouble thinking of what would motivate them to try to get it published in the first place.   I do think students should be exposed to those sorts of papers but I'd come at it from a different angle. I think trying to teach how to read scientific papers would either result in overconfidence in the degree to which they understand the key ideas, or they'd have a sort of vaguely memorised assortment of concepts lacking the right sort of context to internalise it properly.   I'd say encourage students to read those papers and try to familiarise themselves with the format on their own, and only really try to teach them anything if they have specific questions or make clear mistakes. Have them using conflicting papers to debate each-other and in no time they'll figure out enough on their own to criticise their opponents.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17462.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"skko1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"CMV: Students should be taught how to read scientific literature in high school Hopefully this counts for fresh topic friday. I\u2019ve seen posts talking about covering \u201creal world\u201d skills like taxes and stuff but nothing like this specifically.   There\u2019s a very strong distrust of media and government in society, specifically regarding medical\/scientific matters. I can\u2019t say that distrust is unjustified either. You should always try and confirm the validity of what you read or hear. The issue is the average person doesn\u2019t know how to discern what is and isn\u2019t credible. I think the solution is to teach high school students how to read scientific articles.   You might think there\u2019s too much jargon and specific knowledge for someone not in the field to understand. I disagree. When I was in college I took a course called \u201cCommunication in Biology.\u201d It was an alternative for an English gen ed course for bio majors. It obviously focused on biology, but it taught the skills needed to get the gist of the article even in a topic you know nothing about. For example, I could understand the general concepts and credibility of a publication on climate change despite having no formal education on the matter. I may not understand every piece of it, but I can tell if a news article is accurately extrapolating the conclusions of the research article.   To implement this in high schools, this could be done in either science or English courses, or split between both. It would go over the main components of a scientific article: abstract, methods, results, conclusions, and citations. There would be a basic rundown of statistical analysis. Not necessarily how it is calculated (though That would be great to teach in math class) but rather just understanding what p values, CI, standard deviations, etc. measure and how to tell if a value is statistically significant.   Students would be taught how to answer the following questions: -What question did the researchers aim to answer? -what conclusion did they come to? -Does the data actually support that conclusion?  I can currently see two problems with this idea.   1. Finding space for it in curriculum. My solution to this would be for it to be spread out over the span of high school, not all at once. That way nothing large would have to be cut from a single course. It could also be covered partially in both science and English classes since it involves reading comprehension. Stats could be done in math class as well.   2. There is the problem of accessibility of research articles outside an academic setting. Most people won\u2019t have institutional access to scientific journals all their lives and teachers can\u2019t suggest something that\u2019s technically illegal (Scihub). I don\u2019t think it makes it unnecessary to teach, however. It teaches students to think critically about what they\u2019re reading. That applies to all media they read, not just scholarly articles. And hopefully someday we\u2019ll end paywalls on research articles.  This seems like a really good idea that should be implemented so I\u2019m interested in hearing any problems with it that I haven\u2019t considered. One thing I will say isn\u2019t going to change my mind: anecdotes of \u201cmy school already teaches this\u201d unless you can show me that it\u2019s already happening in a large number of schools.","c_root_id_A":"hvmdvrn","c_root_id_B":"hvmuhy8","created_at_utc_A":1644012944,"created_at_utc_B":1644019850,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Education is gate kept by higher society. This is why tik tok is a free app, yet scientific publications have to be paid for.","human_ref_B":"Ex-PhD student here.  You're missing something important: That scientific research is basically a pyramid scheme built upon academics fighting over a miniscule amount of money and lot of young students roped into performing slave labor. Scientists can be really creative with how they show only the relevant data to get something to be worth publishing. Research group leaders need to publish a lot, and often, just to keep their names relevant and their labs afloat. You're expecting younger students to read something that is most likely to be a piece of shit?  If a paper was worth reading, then a major publisher like Nature or Science would have written features about them intended for the general public.  Oh, and PhD students everywhere just read the abstract, look at the pretty pictures, go straight to the conclusion. If it's interesting, *maybe* they'll read the methods section.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6906.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"n53tnc","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"cmv: You should not self diagnose mental illness even if you're experiencing restricted access to healthcare due to your socioeconomic status. I recently got into an argument online with someone who argued that all self diagnosis was valid because some people were too poor to have access to healthcare and that a diagnosis was a privilege, she further argued that because I disagreed that meant that I hated poor people.  I have a diagnosed mental illness (bipolar+PTSD). I grew up below the poverty line in my country, I no longer live below the poverty line.  I realise that access to healthcare is a privilege that not everyone gets (though I personally believe that it is a fundamental human right).  Okay so reasons why I don't think self diagnosis is valid: 1. It takes years and years of study and experience in the field to accurately assess and diagnose mental illnesses. 2. A diagnosis is really only beneficial if you know how to treat or manage that diagnosis. 3. Some diagnosis require medications to help manage. 4. Some mental illnesses share traits or have traits that can be easily confused. 5. Self diagnosis undermines the struggle of people with diagnosed mental health issues to be taken seriously. (Especially in school and the work place) 6. You could miss diagnose yourself and further delay proper treatment.  7. It might encourage people to self medicate which could make them worse off.   Finally I really want to get a broader perspective on this because the conversation was very antagonistic, I was told that I \"hate poor people\"? I would like to reiterate that I do not hate people in poverty but I want people to get the right medical attention. I also donate regularly to lifeline because they've helped me more than once.   But please if I'm missing something because of my privilege that I can't see I would like you to cmv.","c_root_id_A":"gwz9q9v","c_root_id_B":"gwzmo6u","created_at_utc_A":1620180951,"created_at_utc_B":1620187966,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I reccomend taking a course in diagnostic psychology. Because some of what you said isn't true.  First, the general premise, that you should not self-diagnose. I think it is better to say you shouldn't self-medicate. People are often misdiagnosed by professionals, especially for rarer disorders that are based more on subjective experience. Thus, in some circumstances, is important to be an advocate of your own health and know about what may possibly be causing your issues. This can then prevent you from having to pay as many people farther down the line. For instance, if I believe I have OCD, it would make more sense to go straight to an OCD therapist who will be able to accurately determine a diagnosis rather than going through a number of professionals who will waste your money trying to figure it out.  > 1. It takes years and years of study and experience in the field to accurately assess and diagnose mental illnesses.  Recent research has put this in question. A lot of diagnostic psychology can be taught in a one-year training. So I guess my point is that self-diagnosis can be a simple first step that can be done with limited knowledge.","human_ref_B":"Man... this is quite a thread!  First of all, access to health care for all is important and I\u2019m glad you live in a place where that is an option. I also think there are a lot of opportunities for ppl to receive mental health care even if they are poor... but it isn\u2019t easy- and if one has mental illness, it is harder.  That being said, I do NOT believe that a person on tic tock advocating for self-diagnosis is an actual psychologist. I would guess they are deflecting from your questions by attacking you about \u2018hating poor people.\u2019   I do agree there are concerns around self diagnosis. I like the idea of being able to say \u2018here are my symptoms, it seems like ____.\u2019 And then talking to someone about the concerns. That is a healthy approach to self-advocacy.  I think that there are a number of concerns with self-diagnosis. Some of which are as simple as most people self diagnose, and then use it as an excuse \u2018well, I can\u2019t do \u2018x\u2019 because I\u2019m depressed.\u2019 When you work with someone, get a diagnosis, you also get tools to support you. If you are self diagnosing, is is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Imagine self diagnosing medical conditions (I\u2019m sure I have a brain tumor because I have headaches) it could be that you have a brain tumor, it could be you have dehydration. And yes, medical professionals do get it wrong- but they have a process and more experience. It is not an \u2018opinion.\u2019 As many suggest. There are criteria, and while you can learn the criteria in a year or two, it also comes with clinical support and a team to help young professionals as they learn the nuances of diagnoses. I think the availability of info online is often mistaken for the wisdom to interpret and apply that info. Anyone can buy a DSM, but to accurately diagnose and treat the conditions in there takes time, training, and experience... and just putting a label on something does help us feel like we are validated in our experience (which many cited in the arguments for self-diagnosing) it is not the end-game.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7015.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"n53tnc","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"cmv: You should not self diagnose mental illness even if you're experiencing restricted access to healthcare due to your socioeconomic status. I recently got into an argument online with someone who argued that all self diagnosis was valid because some people were too poor to have access to healthcare and that a diagnosis was a privilege, she further argued that because I disagreed that meant that I hated poor people.  I have a diagnosed mental illness (bipolar+PTSD). I grew up below the poverty line in my country, I no longer live below the poverty line.  I realise that access to healthcare is a privilege that not everyone gets (though I personally believe that it is a fundamental human right).  Okay so reasons why I don't think self diagnosis is valid: 1. It takes years and years of study and experience in the field to accurately assess and diagnose mental illnesses. 2. A diagnosis is really only beneficial if you know how to treat or manage that diagnosis. 3. Some diagnosis require medications to help manage. 4. Some mental illnesses share traits or have traits that can be easily confused. 5. Self diagnosis undermines the struggle of people with diagnosed mental health issues to be taken seriously. (Especially in school and the work place) 6. You could miss diagnose yourself and further delay proper treatment.  7. It might encourage people to self medicate which could make them worse off.   Finally I really want to get a broader perspective on this because the conversation was very antagonistic, I was told that I \"hate poor people\"? I would like to reiterate that I do not hate people in poverty but I want people to get the right medical attention. I also donate regularly to lifeline because they've helped me more than once.   But please if I'm missing something because of my privilege that I can't see I would like you to cmv.","c_root_id_A":"gwzdzh4","c_root_id_B":"gwzmo6u","created_at_utc_A":1620183118,"created_at_utc_B":1620187966,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If a person has a problem they should attempt to solve that problem.    I am not a mechanic.  But if my car is broken & I cannot afford to hire a mechanic, my options are to not have a car or attempt to fix it myself.  There are many risks that come with non-mechanics working on cars.  There are good reasons to think twice before beginning.  But at the end of the day, a broken car is as useless as no car at all.  So the risks are worth the reward.   That example is trivial in comparison to being able to navigate day-to-day life.  Being able to work on a problem and to attempt to find a solution.  I'll agree that non-therapists run risks in self-diagnosing & that they should think carefully before doing so.  But it is impossible to ask a person to live with overwhelming issues without attempting to resolve those issues. It is not just unfair or unreasonable of you to ask; it is (in my opinion) literally an impossible thing to ask of them.","human_ref_B":"Man... this is quite a thread!  First of all, access to health care for all is important and I\u2019m glad you live in a place where that is an option. I also think there are a lot of opportunities for ppl to receive mental health care even if they are poor... but it isn\u2019t easy- and if one has mental illness, it is harder.  That being said, I do NOT believe that a person on tic tock advocating for self-diagnosis is an actual psychologist. I would guess they are deflecting from your questions by attacking you about \u2018hating poor people.\u2019   I do agree there are concerns around self diagnosis. I like the idea of being able to say \u2018here are my symptoms, it seems like ____.\u2019 And then talking to someone about the concerns. That is a healthy approach to self-advocacy.  I think that there are a number of concerns with self-diagnosis. Some of which are as simple as most people self diagnose, and then use it as an excuse \u2018well, I can\u2019t do \u2018x\u2019 because I\u2019m depressed.\u2019 When you work with someone, get a diagnosis, you also get tools to support you. If you are self diagnosing, is is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Imagine self diagnosing medical conditions (I\u2019m sure I have a brain tumor because I have headaches) it could be that you have a brain tumor, it could be you have dehydration. And yes, medical professionals do get it wrong- but they have a process and more experience. It is not an \u2018opinion.\u2019 As many suggest. There are criteria, and while you can learn the criteria in a year or two, it also comes with clinical support and a team to help young professionals as they learn the nuances of diagnoses. I think the availability of info online is often mistaken for the wisdom to interpret and apply that info. Anyone can buy a DSM, but to accurately diagnose and treat the conditions in there takes time, training, and experience... and just putting a label on something does help us feel like we are validated in our experience (which many cited in the arguments for self-diagnosing) it is not the end-game.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4848.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"n53tnc","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"cmv: You should not self diagnose mental illness even if you're experiencing restricted access to healthcare due to your socioeconomic status. I recently got into an argument online with someone who argued that all self diagnosis was valid because some people were too poor to have access to healthcare and that a diagnosis was a privilege, she further argued that because I disagreed that meant that I hated poor people.  I have a diagnosed mental illness (bipolar+PTSD). I grew up below the poverty line in my country, I no longer live below the poverty line.  I realise that access to healthcare is a privilege that not everyone gets (though I personally believe that it is a fundamental human right).  Okay so reasons why I don't think self diagnosis is valid: 1. It takes years and years of study and experience in the field to accurately assess and diagnose mental illnesses. 2. A diagnosis is really only beneficial if you know how to treat or manage that diagnosis. 3. Some diagnosis require medications to help manage. 4. Some mental illnesses share traits or have traits that can be easily confused. 5. Self diagnosis undermines the struggle of people with diagnosed mental health issues to be taken seriously. (Especially in school and the work place) 6. You could miss diagnose yourself and further delay proper treatment.  7. It might encourage people to self medicate which could make them worse off.   Finally I really want to get a broader perspective on this because the conversation was very antagonistic, I was told that I \"hate poor people\"? I would like to reiterate that I do not hate people in poverty but I want people to get the right medical attention. I also donate regularly to lifeline because they've helped me more than once.   But please if I'm missing something because of my privilege that I can't see I would like you to cmv.","c_root_id_A":"gwzg2pe","c_root_id_B":"gwzmo6u","created_at_utc_A":1620184228,"created_at_utc_B":1620187966,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Self-diagnosis is about as \"valid\" as any other diagnosis because one does not objectively \"have\" or \"not have\" about any mental illness that exists\u2014the reproducibility rate of professionals is very low because these are opinions, not facts. It means about as much as \"warm and kind individual\" or not.  > 1. It takes years and years of study and experience in the field to accurately assess and diagnose mental illnesses.  There is no such thing as \"accuracy\" with \"professional opinion\".  Pretty much any research conducted into the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses by professionals all concluded it was completely unreliabe: the same individual can be sent to 5 different psychiatrists and come back with 5 different diagnoses from each and it's also shown how easy it is to make psychiatrists give out false diagnoses to ordinary individuals simply by dropping the power of suggestion and suddenly they start to see ghosts that aren't there.","human_ref_B":"Man... this is quite a thread!  First of all, access to health care for all is important and I\u2019m glad you live in a place where that is an option. I also think there are a lot of opportunities for ppl to receive mental health care even if they are poor... but it isn\u2019t easy- and if one has mental illness, it is harder.  That being said, I do NOT believe that a person on tic tock advocating for self-diagnosis is an actual psychologist. I would guess they are deflecting from your questions by attacking you about \u2018hating poor people.\u2019   I do agree there are concerns around self diagnosis. I like the idea of being able to say \u2018here are my symptoms, it seems like ____.\u2019 And then talking to someone about the concerns. That is a healthy approach to self-advocacy.  I think that there are a number of concerns with self-diagnosis. Some of which are as simple as most people self diagnose, and then use it as an excuse \u2018well, I can\u2019t do \u2018x\u2019 because I\u2019m depressed.\u2019 When you work with someone, get a diagnosis, you also get tools to support you. If you are self diagnosing, is is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Imagine self diagnosing medical conditions (I\u2019m sure I have a brain tumor because I have headaches) it could be that you have a brain tumor, it could be you have dehydration. And yes, medical professionals do get it wrong- but they have a process and more experience. It is not an \u2018opinion.\u2019 As many suggest. There are criteria, and while you can learn the criteria in a year or two, it also comes with clinical support and a team to help young professionals as they learn the nuances of diagnoses. I think the availability of info online is often mistaken for the wisdom to interpret and apply that info. Anyone can buy a DSM, but to accurately diagnose and treat the conditions in there takes time, training, and experience... and just putting a label on something does help us feel like we are validated in our experience (which many cited in the arguments for self-diagnosing) it is not the end-game.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3738.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"n53tnc","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"cmv: You should not self diagnose mental illness even if you're experiencing restricted access to healthcare due to your socioeconomic status. I recently got into an argument online with someone who argued that all self diagnosis was valid because some people were too poor to have access to healthcare and that a diagnosis was a privilege, she further argued that because I disagreed that meant that I hated poor people.  I have a diagnosed mental illness (bipolar+PTSD). I grew up below the poverty line in my country, I no longer live below the poverty line.  I realise that access to healthcare is a privilege that not everyone gets (though I personally believe that it is a fundamental human right).  Okay so reasons why I don't think self diagnosis is valid: 1. It takes years and years of study and experience in the field to accurately assess and diagnose mental illnesses. 2. A diagnosis is really only beneficial if you know how to treat or manage that diagnosis. 3. Some diagnosis require medications to help manage. 4. Some mental illnesses share traits or have traits that can be easily confused. 5. Self diagnosis undermines the struggle of people with diagnosed mental health issues to be taken seriously. (Especially in school and the work place) 6. You could miss diagnose yourself and further delay proper treatment.  7. It might encourage people to self medicate which could make them worse off.   Finally I really want to get a broader perspective on this because the conversation was very antagonistic, I was told that I \"hate poor people\"? I would like to reiterate that I do not hate people in poverty but I want people to get the right medical attention. I also donate regularly to lifeline because they've helped me more than once.   But please if I'm missing something because of my privilege that I can't see I would like you to cmv.","c_root_id_A":"gwzx85z","c_root_id_B":"gx0ripu","created_at_utc_A":1620195240,"created_at_utc_B":1620219388,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Self diagnosing isn't entirely bad, per say.what is bad, is you can end up with many different diagnosis. For your symptoms.  Many of same symptoms go for different things\/categories. Which then can lead some to worry.","human_ref_B":"I'm gonna walk through each of your points.  >It takes years and years of study and experience in the field to accurately assess and diagnose mental illnesses.  Yes, and professionals still routinely misdiagnose patients. If you've been misdiagnosed repeatedly (this is particularly an issue for black women, who are often ignored or have their problems downplayed by white doctors), you're going to have a hard time trusting your doctor to make the right judgement, especially when you are pretty certain you have X issue and they keep prescribing the wrong treatments. This doubly if you're low-income and can't afford to keep throwing money at a wall.  >A diagnosis is really only beneficial if you know how to treat or manage that diagnosis.  A specific term\/label can help you to seek out recommended coping strategies for X illness. I self-diagnosed with ADHD before being professionally diagnosed because I couldn't afford it and was able to find some preliminary strategies to manage my symptoms. Not as good as therapy, but better than doing nothing because 'self diagnosis bad'. Also, having a label helps find community and others who can relate.  >Some diagnosis require medications to help manage.  Sure. And if I don't get professionally diagnosed because I literally can't afford it, I'm not going to be able to get medication anyway. Self-diagnosing doesn't hurt, it just doesn't get me any closer to meds.  >Some mental illnesses share traits or have traits that can be easily confused.  This is true, but these often have similar coping strategies.  >Self diagnosis undermines the struggle of people with diagnosed mental health issues to be taken seriously. (Especially in school and the work place)  How? Again, I self-diagnosed because I was struggling and literally did not have any ability to get professional treatment. How did this undermine people with diagnosed ADHD? I see this argument all the time with no substance. Should I have kept flailing and failing through school for the sake of 'real diagnosed people'? I don't think that helps me or others with ADHD. I'm now professionally diagnosed, but self-diagnosis is what allowed me to get help in my school. I didn't steal that from other people.  >You could miss diagnose yourself and further delay proper treatment.  Again, if someone can't afford 'proper treatment' to begin with, self-diagnosis isn't delaying that. If professional diagnosis isn't part of the equation to begin with, self-diagnosis isn't the problem.  >It might encourage people to self medicate which could make them worse off.  OK, there's very limited ability to actually do this. Some people buy ADHD meds (but I largely see non-ADHD people do this because it gets them high, lol), but generally the only ability to self-medicate is through smoking weed for minor things like anxiety\/insomnia. There's not like, a wide market of anti-depressants available for people to grab and go.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24148.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69iv39","c_root_id_B":"e69jvnx","created_at_utc_A":1537375567,"created_at_utc_B":1537376379,"score_A":151,"score_B":884,"human_ref_A":"How about if you enjoyed The Dukes of Hazzard?  Edit:  I just noticed you're a Brit.  The Dukes of Hazzard is an American TV comedy from the early 80's about a pair of brothers (the Dukes) who are moonshiners and general scofflaws in Hazzard county which is run by corrupt officials.  Their car, the General Lee, is an orange Dodge Charger with the confederate flag covering the entire roof and is featured prominently in pretty much every episode.  The show itself touched very little on racism if at all.  So if someone had no clue about American history, but watched the Dukes of Hazzard they could be inclined to want to fly or hang the confederate flag.","human_ref_B":"So the flag has a meaning to the individual that flies it, and this may or may not be racist. The problem is that it is increasingly difficult to claim that you are ignorant of the racist message the flag sends, whether or not that is your intent.  When I was a kid, people romanticized the flag. It represented that irrepressible rebel spirit that all Americans were supposed to cherish. In many people's eyes, the Civil War was very similar to the Revolutionary War, with a very different outcome for the rebels. Even though the North won, the fact that the South fought nobly and well against an opponent with all of the advantages speaks to something deep in our scrappy souls (cf. John Cougar Mellencamp's Authority Song). We're supposed to stand up to the man (cf. Johnny Paycheck's Take This Job and Shove It) and we don't let people tread on us.  That's why you put a flag decal on the back of your pickup truck. Not because you thought slavery was a good idea. And, at least where I was from, there just weren't that many black people to be offended...and they probably would have felt very awkward saying anything. So people just continued in blissful ignorance until, probably within the last 20 years, there was a growing awareness that it just wasn't okay.  Now, you have a bunch of people being called out for doing something that they didn't consider remotely racist. That certainly wasn't their intent. They're good people, and it's not their fault if people misinterpret the reason that they fly the flag. In fact, this is just one more example of The Man trying to tell them what they can say and do. I guess it's time to rebel against PC culture and school or working environments that make assumptions about you just because you're white and working class. The fact that they probably can't win just makes the struggle that much more beautiful.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":812.0,"score_ratio":5.8543046358}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69ju6k","c_root_id_B":"e69jvnx","created_at_utc_A":1537376346,"created_at_utc_B":1537376379,"score_A":55,"score_B":884,"human_ref_A":"Question for OP. What about if i fly the \"Jolly Roger Flag\" There were more rapes, murders, making of slaves, stealing, pillaging and countless other horrors to go on under that flag than ANY other. But i and a whoooole lot of other people still fly it every day.","human_ref_B":"So the flag has a meaning to the individual that flies it, and this may or may not be racist. The problem is that it is increasingly difficult to claim that you are ignorant of the racist message the flag sends, whether or not that is your intent.  When I was a kid, people romanticized the flag. It represented that irrepressible rebel spirit that all Americans were supposed to cherish. In many people's eyes, the Civil War was very similar to the Revolutionary War, with a very different outcome for the rebels. Even though the North won, the fact that the South fought nobly and well against an opponent with all of the advantages speaks to something deep in our scrappy souls (cf. John Cougar Mellencamp's Authority Song). We're supposed to stand up to the man (cf. Johnny Paycheck's Take This Job and Shove It) and we don't let people tread on us.  That's why you put a flag decal on the back of your pickup truck. Not because you thought slavery was a good idea. And, at least where I was from, there just weren't that many black people to be offended...and they probably would have felt very awkward saying anything. So people just continued in blissful ignorance until, probably within the last 20 years, there was a growing awareness that it just wasn't okay.  Now, you have a bunch of people being called out for doing something that they didn't consider remotely racist. That certainly wasn't their intent. They're good people, and it's not their fault if people misinterpret the reason that they fly the flag. In fact, this is just one more example of The Man trying to tell them what they can say and do. I guess it's time to rebel against PC culture and school or working environments that make assumptions about you just because you're white and working class. The fact that they probably can't win just makes the struggle that much more beautiful.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33.0,"score_ratio":16.0727272727}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69j5do","c_root_id_B":"e69jvnx","created_at_utc_A":1537375796,"created_at_utc_B":1537376379,"score_A":41,"score_B":884,"human_ref_A":"I really like the Tennessee William's play *Cat on a Hot Tin Roof*. I've seen the movie twice this month. Elizabeth Taylor, Paul Newman . . . it's perfect. If it came on again, I would watch it start to finish.   However, there is the whole unexplored background of black exploitation. Not as a genre, but as *literal* exploitation of black southerners by this rich white family. It's post slavery - slavery. Black field hands, black house servants - none of whom get to enjoy in the riches the family does. When \"Big Daddy\" talks about making rich pasture land out of swamp, he's talking about his control of post-slavery blacks who do not get to share in the profits of their labor.   Just like *Gone with the Wind* is a good movie, but it just likes to whistle and kick dirt when it comes to the treatment of blacks.   That's the generous appraisal of the confederate flag. It's tied up in the greatness of the south, a greatness built on the back of slavery. When people want to be proud of their history, of the richness of their past, they want to excise out the unpleasant parts and focus just on what actually was really quite nice. And parts of the confederate south really were quite nice, and gentile, and civilized.   If you can turn your mind off to the plight of slaves. **So your character that actually likes the confederate flag** should probably do exactly that, turn their mind off to the plight of slaves.","human_ref_B":"So the flag has a meaning to the individual that flies it, and this may or may not be racist. The problem is that it is increasingly difficult to claim that you are ignorant of the racist message the flag sends, whether or not that is your intent.  When I was a kid, people romanticized the flag. It represented that irrepressible rebel spirit that all Americans were supposed to cherish. In many people's eyes, the Civil War was very similar to the Revolutionary War, with a very different outcome for the rebels. Even though the North won, the fact that the South fought nobly and well against an opponent with all of the advantages speaks to something deep in our scrappy souls (cf. John Cougar Mellencamp's Authority Song). We're supposed to stand up to the man (cf. Johnny Paycheck's Take This Job and Shove It) and we don't let people tread on us.  That's why you put a flag decal on the back of your pickup truck. Not because you thought slavery was a good idea. And, at least where I was from, there just weren't that many black people to be offended...and they probably would have felt very awkward saying anything. So people just continued in blissful ignorance until, probably within the last 20 years, there was a growing awareness that it just wasn't okay.  Now, you have a bunch of people being called out for doing something that they didn't consider remotely racist. That certainly wasn't their intent. They're good people, and it's not their fault if people misinterpret the reason that they fly the flag. In fact, this is just one more example of The Man trying to tell them what they can say and do. I guess it's time to rebel against PC culture and school or working environments that make assumptions about you just because you're white and working class. The fact that they probably can't win just makes the struggle that much more beautiful.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":583.0,"score_ratio":21.5609756098}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69iqf8","c_root_id_B":"e69jvnx","created_at_utc_A":1537375465,"created_at_utc_B":1537376379,"score_A":34,"score_B":884,"human_ref_A":"What does \"supporting the confederate flag\" mean?  Like all other flags, the confederate flag is a piece of cloth, the meaning it has is meaning that we read into it.   It's not so hard to come up with contexts - like historical museums - where the display of a confederate flag doesn't seem particularly racist to me.","human_ref_B":"So the flag has a meaning to the individual that flies it, and this may or may not be racist. The problem is that it is increasingly difficult to claim that you are ignorant of the racist message the flag sends, whether or not that is your intent.  When I was a kid, people romanticized the flag. It represented that irrepressible rebel spirit that all Americans were supposed to cherish. In many people's eyes, the Civil War was very similar to the Revolutionary War, with a very different outcome for the rebels. Even though the North won, the fact that the South fought nobly and well against an opponent with all of the advantages speaks to something deep in our scrappy souls (cf. John Cougar Mellencamp's Authority Song). We're supposed to stand up to the man (cf. Johnny Paycheck's Take This Job and Shove It) and we don't let people tread on us.  That's why you put a flag decal on the back of your pickup truck. Not because you thought slavery was a good idea. And, at least where I was from, there just weren't that many black people to be offended...and they probably would have felt very awkward saying anything. So people just continued in blissful ignorance until, probably within the last 20 years, there was a growing awareness that it just wasn't okay.  Now, you have a bunch of people being called out for doing something that they didn't consider remotely racist. That certainly wasn't their intent. They're good people, and it's not their fault if people misinterpret the reason that they fly the flag. In fact, this is just one more example of The Man trying to tell them what they can say and do. I guess it's time to rebel against PC culture and school or working environments that make assumptions about you just because you're white and working class. The fact that they probably can't win just makes the struggle that much more beautiful.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":914.0,"score_ratio":26.0}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69gnfx","c_root_id_B":"e69jvnx","created_at_utc_A":1537373787,"created_at_utc_B":1537376379,"score_A":36,"score_B":884,"human_ref_A":"Many Southerners use the flag to represent independent state power, and a distrust in the Union. It's reasonable - our government relies on constant scrutiny of itself. There is a positive.","human_ref_B":"So the flag has a meaning to the individual that flies it, and this may or may not be racist. The problem is that it is increasingly difficult to claim that you are ignorant of the racist message the flag sends, whether or not that is your intent.  When I was a kid, people romanticized the flag. It represented that irrepressible rebel spirit that all Americans were supposed to cherish. In many people's eyes, the Civil War was very similar to the Revolutionary War, with a very different outcome for the rebels. Even though the North won, the fact that the South fought nobly and well against an opponent with all of the advantages speaks to something deep in our scrappy souls (cf. John Cougar Mellencamp's Authority Song). We're supposed to stand up to the man (cf. Johnny Paycheck's Take This Job and Shove It) and we don't let people tread on us.  That's why you put a flag decal on the back of your pickup truck. Not because you thought slavery was a good idea. And, at least where I was from, there just weren't that many black people to be offended...and they probably would have felt very awkward saying anything. So people just continued in blissful ignorance until, probably within the last 20 years, there was a growing awareness that it just wasn't okay.  Now, you have a bunch of people being called out for doing something that they didn't consider remotely racist. That certainly wasn't their intent. They're good people, and it's not their fault if people misinterpret the reason that they fly the flag. In fact, this is just one more example of The Man trying to tell them what they can say and do. I guess it's time to rebel against PC culture and school or working environments that make assumptions about you just because you're white and working class. The fact that they probably can't win just makes the struggle that much more beautiful.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2592.0,"score_ratio":24.5555555556}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69jvnx","c_root_id_B":"e69itgk","created_at_utc_A":1537376379,"created_at_utc_B":1537375532,"score_A":884,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"So the flag has a meaning to the individual that flies it, and this may or may not be racist. The problem is that it is increasingly difficult to claim that you are ignorant of the racist message the flag sends, whether or not that is your intent.  When I was a kid, people romanticized the flag. It represented that irrepressible rebel spirit that all Americans were supposed to cherish. In many people's eyes, the Civil War was very similar to the Revolutionary War, with a very different outcome for the rebels. Even though the North won, the fact that the South fought nobly and well against an opponent with all of the advantages speaks to something deep in our scrappy souls (cf. John Cougar Mellencamp's Authority Song). We're supposed to stand up to the man (cf. Johnny Paycheck's Take This Job and Shove It) and we don't let people tread on us.  That's why you put a flag decal on the back of your pickup truck. Not because you thought slavery was a good idea. And, at least where I was from, there just weren't that many black people to be offended...and they probably would have felt very awkward saying anything. So people just continued in blissful ignorance until, probably within the last 20 years, there was a growing awareness that it just wasn't okay.  Now, you have a bunch of people being called out for doing something that they didn't consider remotely racist. That certainly wasn't their intent. They're good people, and it's not their fault if people misinterpret the reason that they fly the flag. In fact, this is just one more example of The Man trying to tell them what they can say and do. I guess it's time to rebel against PC culture and school or working environments that make assumptions about you just because you're white and working class. The fact that they probably can't win just makes the struggle that much more beautiful.","human_ref_B":"I don't think there are any positives from flying it, but there are definitely positives for displaying it in museums or similar places as it has tremendous historical significance for the United States.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":847.0,"score_ratio":63.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69iv39","c_root_id_B":"e69iqf8","created_at_utc_A":1537375567,"created_at_utc_B":1537375465,"score_A":151,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"How about if you enjoyed The Dukes of Hazzard?  Edit:  I just noticed you're a Brit.  The Dukes of Hazzard is an American TV comedy from the early 80's about a pair of brothers (the Dukes) who are moonshiners and general scofflaws in Hazzard county which is run by corrupt officials.  Their car, the General Lee, is an orange Dodge Charger with the confederate flag covering the entire roof and is featured prominently in pretty much every episode.  The show itself touched very little on racism if at all.  So if someone had no clue about American history, but watched the Dukes of Hazzard they could be inclined to want to fly or hang the confederate flag.","human_ref_B":"What does \"supporting the confederate flag\" mean?  Like all other flags, the confederate flag is a piece of cloth, the meaning it has is meaning that we read into it.   It's not so hard to come up with contexts - like historical museums - where the display of a confederate flag doesn't seem particularly racist to me.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":102.0,"score_ratio":4.4411764706}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69iv39","c_root_id_B":"e69gnfx","created_at_utc_A":1537375567,"created_at_utc_B":1537373787,"score_A":151,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"How about if you enjoyed The Dukes of Hazzard?  Edit:  I just noticed you're a Brit.  The Dukes of Hazzard is an American TV comedy from the early 80's about a pair of brothers (the Dukes) who are moonshiners and general scofflaws in Hazzard county which is run by corrupt officials.  Their car, the General Lee, is an orange Dodge Charger with the confederate flag covering the entire roof and is featured prominently in pretty much every episode.  The show itself touched very little on racism if at all.  So if someone had no clue about American history, but watched the Dukes of Hazzard they could be inclined to want to fly or hang the confederate flag.","human_ref_B":"Many Southerners use the flag to represent independent state power, and a distrust in the Union. It's reasonable - our government relies on constant scrutiny of itself. There is a positive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1780.0,"score_ratio":4.1944444444}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69itgk","c_root_id_B":"e69iv39","created_at_utc_A":1537375532,"created_at_utc_B":1537375567,"score_A":14,"score_B":151,"human_ref_A":"I don't think there are any positives from flying it, but there are definitely positives for displaying it in museums or similar places as it has tremendous historical significance for the United States.","human_ref_B":"How about if you enjoyed The Dukes of Hazzard?  Edit:  I just noticed you're a Brit.  The Dukes of Hazzard is an American TV comedy from the early 80's about a pair of brothers (the Dukes) who are moonshiners and general scofflaws in Hazzard county which is run by corrupt officials.  Their car, the General Lee, is an orange Dodge Charger with the confederate flag covering the entire roof and is featured prominently in pretty much every episode.  The show itself touched very little on racism if at all.  So if someone had no clue about American history, but watched the Dukes of Hazzard they could be inclined to want to fly or hang the confederate flag.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":35.0,"score_ratio":10.7857142857}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69j5do","c_root_id_B":"e69ju6k","created_at_utc_A":1537375796,"created_at_utc_B":1537376346,"score_A":41,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"I really like the Tennessee William's play *Cat on a Hot Tin Roof*. I've seen the movie twice this month. Elizabeth Taylor, Paul Newman . . . it's perfect. If it came on again, I would watch it start to finish.   However, there is the whole unexplored background of black exploitation. Not as a genre, but as *literal* exploitation of black southerners by this rich white family. It's post slavery - slavery. Black field hands, black house servants - none of whom get to enjoy in the riches the family does. When \"Big Daddy\" talks about making rich pasture land out of swamp, he's talking about his control of post-slavery blacks who do not get to share in the profits of their labor.   Just like *Gone with the Wind* is a good movie, but it just likes to whistle and kick dirt when it comes to the treatment of blacks.   That's the generous appraisal of the confederate flag. It's tied up in the greatness of the south, a greatness built on the back of slavery. When people want to be proud of their history, of the richness of their past, they want to excise out the unpleasant parts and focus just on what actually was really quite nice. And parts of the confederate south really were quite nice, and gentile, and civilized.   If you can turn your mind off to the plight of slaves. **So your character that actually likes the confederate flag** should probably do exactly that, turn their mind off to the plight of slaves.","human_ref_B":"Question for OP. What about if i fly the \"Jolly Roger Flag\" There were more rapes, murders, making of slaves, stealing, pillaging and countless other horrors to go on under that flag than ANY other. But i and a whoooole lot of other people still fly it every day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":550.0,"score_ratio":1.3414634146}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69iqf8","c_root_id_B":"e69ju6k","created_at_utc_A":1537375465,"created_at_utc_B":1537376346,"score_A":34,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"What does \"supporting the confederate flag\" mean?  Like all other flags, the confederate flag is a piece of cloth, the meaning it has is meaning that we read into it.   It's not so hard to come up with contexts - like historical museums - where the display of a confederate flag doesn't seem particularly racist to me.","human_ref_B":"Question for OP. What about if i fly the \"Jolly Roger Flag\" There were more rapes, murders, making of slaves, stealing, pillaging and countless other horrors to go on under that flag than ANY other. But i and a whoooole lot of other people still fly it every day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":881.0,"score_ratio":1.6176470588}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69ju6k","c_root_id_B":"e69gnfx","created_at_utc_A":1537376346,"created_at_utc_B":1537373787,"score_A":55,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"Question for OP. What about if i fly the \"Jolly Roger Flag\" There were more rapes, murders, making of slaves, stealing, pillaging and countless other horrors to go on under that flag than ANY other. But i and a whoooole lot of other people still fly it every day.","human_ref_B":"Many Southerners use the flag to represent independent state power, and a distrust in the Union. It's reasonable - our government relies on constant scrutiny of itself. There is a positive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2559.0,"score_ratio":1.5277777778}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69itgk","c_root_id_B":"e69ju6k","created_at_utc_A":1537375532,"created_at_utc_B":1537376346,"score_A":14,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"I don't think there are any positives from flying it, but there are definitely positives for displaying it in museums or similar places as it has tremendous historical significance for the United States.","human_ref_B":"Question for OP. What about if i fly the \"Jolly Roger Flag\" There were more rapes, murders, making of slaves, stealing, pillaging and countless other horrors to go on under that flag than ANY other. But i and a whoooole lot of other people still fly it every day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":814.0,"score_ratio":3.9285714286}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69j5do","c_root_id_B":"e69iqf8","created_at_utc_A":1537375796,"created_at_utc_B":1537375465,"score_A":41,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"I really like the Tennessee William's play *Cat on a Hot Tin Roof*. I've seen the movie twice this month. Elizabeth Taylor, Paul Newman . . . it's perfect. If it came on again, I would watch it start to finish.   However, there is the whole unexplored background of black exploitation. Not as a genre, but as *literal* exploitation of black southerners by this rich white family. It's post slavery - slavery. Black field hands, black house servants - none of whom get to enjoy in the riches the family does. When \"Big Daddy\" talks about making rich pasture land out of swamp, he's talking about his control of post-slavery blacks who do not get to share in the profits of their labor.   Just like *Gone with the Wind* is a good movie, but it just likes to whistle and kick dirt when it comes to the treatment of blacks.   That's the generous appraisal of the confederate flag. It's tied up in the greatness of the south, a greatness built on the back of slavery. When people want to be proud of their history, of the richness of their past, they want to excise out the unpleasant parts and focus just on what actually was really quite nice. And parts of the confederate south really were quite nice, and gentile, and civilized.   If you can turn your mind off to the plight of slaves. **So your character that actually likes the confederate flag** should probably do exactly that, turn their mind off to the plight of slaves.","human_ref_B":"What does \"supporting the confederate flag\" mean?  Like all other flags, the confederate flag is a piece of cloth, the meaning it has is meaning that we read into it.   It's not so hard to come up with contexts - like historical museums - where the display of a confederate flag doesn't seem particularly racist to me.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":331.0,"score_ratio":1.2058823529}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69gnfx","c_root_id_B":"e69j5do","created_at_utc_A":1537373787,"created_at_utc_B":1537375796,"score_A":36,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"Many Southerners use the flag to represent independent state power, and a distrust in the Union. It's reasonable - our government relies on constant scrutiny of itself. There is a positive.","human_ref_B":"I really like the Tennessee William's play *Cat on a Hot Tin Roof*. I've seen the movie twice this month. Elizabeth Taylor, Paul Newman . . . it's perfect. If it came on again, I would watch it start to finish.   However, there is the whole unexplored background of black exploitation. Not as a genre, but as *literal* exploitation of black southerners by this rich white family. It's post slavery - slavery. Black field hands, black house servants - none of whom get to enjoy in the riches the family does. When \"Big Daddy\" talks about making rich pasture land out of swamp, he's talking about his control of post-slavery blacks who do not get to share in the profits of their labor.   Just like *Gone with the Wind* is a good movie, but it just likes to whistle and kick dirt when it comes to the treatment of blacks.   That's the generous appraisal of the confederate flag. It's tied up in the greatness of the south, a greatness built on the back of slavery. When people want to be proud of their history, of the richness of their past, they want to excise out the unpleasant parts and focus just on what actually was really quite nice. And parts of the confederate south really were quite nice, and gentile, and civilized.   If you can turn your mind off to the plight of slaves. **So your character that actually likes the confederate flag** should probably do exactly that, turn their mind off to the plight of slaves.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2009.0,"score_ratio":1.1388888889}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69itgk","c_root_id_B":"e69j5do","created_at_utc_A":1537375532,"created_at_utc_B":1537375796,"score_A":14,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"I don't think there are any positives from flying it, but there are definitely positives for displaying it in museums or similar places as it has tremendous historical significance for the United States.","human_ref_B":"I really like the Tennessee William's play *Cat on a Hot Tin Roof*. I've seen the movie twice this month. Elizabeth Taylor, Paul Newman . . . it's perfect. If it came on again, I would watch it start to finish.   However, there is the whole unexplored background of black exploitation. Not as a genre, but as *literal* exploitation of black southerners by this rich white family. It's post slavery - slavery. Black field hands, black house servants - none of whom get to enjoy in the riches the family does. When \"Big Daddy\" talks about making rich pasture land out of swamp, he's talking about his control of post-slavery blacks who do not get to share in the profits of their labor.   Just like *Gone with the Wind* is a good movie, but it just likes to whistle and kick dirt when it comes to the treatment of blacks.   That's the generous appraisal of the confederate flag. It's tied up in the greatness of the south, a greatness built on the back of slavery. When people want to be proud of their history, of the richness of their past, they want to excise out the unpleasant parts and focus just on what actually was really quite nice. And parts of the confederate south really were quite nice, and gentile, and civilized.   If you can turn your mind off to the plight of slaves. **So your character that actually likes the confederate flag** should probably do exactly that, turn their mind off to the plight of slaves.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":264.0,"score_ratio":2.9285714286}
+{"post_id":"9h6ial","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: there are no positives about the Confederate Flag. It is fundamentally racist Okay, I REALLY want my view changed on this one because I am writing a play and a very important part is where someone argues that supporting the confederate flag is not necessarily racist or whatever.  I've seen a lot of stuff on websites like Reddit that seem to say having anything to do with the flag is racist\/extreme right. People on \/r\/beholdthemasterrace declare anyone supporting it as a racist.  For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, so I have no idea about what it might mean for local cultures. I would love to have someone from the south USA explain why it's okay to support the confederate flag.  Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e69itgk","c_root_id_B":"e69jw1i","created_at_utc_A":1537375532,"created_at_utc_B":1537376388,"score_A":14,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"I don't think there are any positives from flying it, but there are definitely positives for displaying it in museums or similar places as it has tremendous historical significance for the United States.","human_ref_B":"The defense of the confederate flag is multilayered.  The confederate flag is not only a symbol of the lives lost in the fighting (sometimes people's ancestors), but also a symbol of much more. It has been used as a symbol of the southern states willingness to stand up to what they believe are unjust laws imposed on them by a tyrannical federal government, a symbol of southern history which allows for them to remind people of the roots from which they came (same as say the christian cross or the jewish star of david despite the fact that both were used as symbols in horrid events the crusades and holocaust respectively). Here are some of my more detailed discussions on not only why dealing with the confederate flag is not racist but even if done in a racist way that it should be allowed.  First, the confederate flag is an important piece of history and as such hanging a confederate flag may be a choice of wanting to remember that history, whether it be as a warning that one might never repeat the mistakes of the past or as a remembrance for those who are lost or for an ideal that they stood for whether that be slavery (racist) or states rights (not racist).  Second, as a matter of culture the confederate flag has been interwoven both literally and figuratively with the southern sense of pride and self worth. for the literal portion, some states only use remnants or similar symbolism to the confederate flag in the south Mississippi still has the flag itself in it's state flag. As for the figuratively many people are direct decedents of those who fell in the civil war fighting the union or have grown up hearing stories of their bravery in fighting for their way of life, this is not them learning it as a racist hateful symbol but as a symbol for freedom and opposing tyranny, to others it may seem hateful but many who hold it as a close part of their culture no longer believe that (some obviously still do).  Third, as a matter of free speech the flag must be allowed so long as no active calls to violence or actions of violence are taken against a person no infringement on free speech should be made within the US. A statement like \"Kill all black\/white\/asian\/indian\/ect people\" should be banned but waving a flag that holds an offensive image of an image of an offensive ideology should not be, if the person holding that image calls for violence then they should be arrested not simply ban the image. This may not be true for all countries but in america free speech is held as our most important value which is why it is our 1st amendment right.   There is definitely more information that can be given on each of these but they should give you a few good starting points to boost your own research on this, I would suggest venturing outside of reddit and many popular websites and instead try to look at pro-confederate flag websites and see what they are saying.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":856.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxdbau","c_root_id_B":"ioxh4iy","created_at_utc_A":1663508994,"created_at_utc_B":1663510716,"score_A":5,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":">Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?  No, because while gender identity can be confusing or unintuitive way to categorize people, sex is EVEN MORE SO.  At the end of the day, all social self-labeling can be confusing or come with caveats, but at least it's a good faith attempt to identify people's social roles in social situations. Sure, no social group is a monolith, but social term are still more useful for categorizing their common traits, than shoehorning distantly related medical terms for social situations.  Even in the rare fringe examples where you actually need to talk to someone about your sex biology, largely untethered from your social roles, that's going to be either intuitive from your presentation like for 99% of people, or if it's not, then it's going to be a whole discussion.  Your doctor doesn't just care about a one word reference to what chromosomes you have, if it's not obvious from one look, then there is also going to be a whole discussion about what what your biology looks like hormonally, genitally, reproductively, etc. none of which are simply \"your sex\".  The same applies to sexual partners. You say that your partners' genitals is important to you, but that's still not simply \"sex\". If you just put people into two buckets of biological males and females, you might actually lead yourself to *misunderstand* what genitals they might have.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m a trans woman. If you test my blood it will indicate female. I have XX chromosomes and one Y. I have breasts, ovaries, and a penis. Do you see how muddy the term \u201cbiological sex\u201d can actually be? One of my pet peeves is how often people throw the term, \u201cbiological sex\u201d at me when what they actually mean is, \u201canatomy\u201d, which, 99% of the time, is just code for, \u201cpenis\u201d.  It sounds to me that what you\u2019re getting at is that you would like to be made aware of a person\u2019s genital configuration (anatomy) upon first meeting when really, that\u2019s not your business. Before hooking up or embarking on a relationship, such disclosure is a moral imperative (imho), but outside of those situations, what does it matter?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1722.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxh4iy","c_root_id_B":"ioxam3s","created_at_utc_A":1663510716,"created_at_utc_B":1663507736,"score_A":20,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m a trans woman. If you test my blood it will indicate female. I have XX chromosomes and one Y. I have breasts, ovaries, and a penis. Do you see how muddy the term \u201cbiological sex\u201d can actually be? One of my pet peeves is how often people throw the term, \u201cbiological sex\u201d at me when what they actually mean is, \u201canatomy\u201d, which, 99% of the time, is just code for, \u201cpenis\u201d.  It sounds to me that what you\u2019re getting at is that you would like to be made aware of a person\u2019s genital configuration (anatomy) upon first meeting when really, that\u2019s not your business. Before hooking up or embarking on a relationship, such disclosure is a moral imperative (imho), but outside of those situations, what does it matter?","human_ref_B":"Pronouns aren't the only way that gender influences our language. I'd say that it's more common for me to be in an interaction where I'm directly referred to as a man than for me to be in an interaction where my sex is relevant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2980.0,"score_ratio":6.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxate1","c_root_id_B":"ioxh4iy","created_at_utc_A":1663507832,"created_at_utc_B":1663510716,"score_A":2,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Do we need to use gender to refer to anyone at all much? Can we just use gender neutral terms unless it comes to specific sex based needs?  E.g. I try to call everyone \"they\" when I am referring to them, because what does it matter if they are male or female in our interactions   But if someone was talking about pregnancy, menstraul cycles, penis advice, sexuality and dating, drs, etc etc then you can clarify it's a she or he.   The only way I am unsure of this, is we do have unique experiences based on sex and how people see that sex or gender. And sometimes you want to talk to someone who goes through it too. Then it might also be relevant too.  But if im calling someone about my phone bill it doesn't make a difference what I am to you.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m a trans woman. If you test my blood it will indicate female. I have XX chromosomes and one Y. I have breasts, ovaries, and a penis. Do you see how muddy the term \u201cbiological sex\u201d can actually be? One of my pet peeves is how often people throw the term, \u201cbiological sex\u201d at me when what they actually mean is, \u201canatomy\u201d, which, 99% of the time, is just code for, \u201cpenis\u201d.  It sounds to me that what you\u2019re getting at is that you would like to be made aware of a person\u2019s genital configuration (anatomy) upon first meeting when really, that\u2019s not your business. Before hooking up or embarking on a relationship, such disclosure is a moral imperative (imho), but outside of those situations, what does it matter?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2884.0,"score_ratio":10.0}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxdbau","c_root_id_B":"ioyotqc","created_at_utc_A":1663508994,"created_at_utc_B":1663527626,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":">Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?  No, because while gender identity can be confusing or unintuitive way to categorize people, sex is EVEN MORE SO.  At the end of the day, all social self-labeling can be confusing or come with caveats, but at least it's a good faith attempt to identify people's social roles in social situations. Sure, no social group is a monolith, but social term are still more useful for categorizing their common traits, than shoehorning distantly related medical terms for social situations.  Even in the rare fringe examples where you actually need to talk to someone about your sex biology, largely untethered from your social roles, that's going to be either intuitive from your presentation like for 99% of people, or if it's not, then it's going to be a whole discussion.  Your doctor doesn't just care about a one word reference to what chromosomes you have, if it's not obvious from one look, then there is also going to be a whole discussion about what what your biology looks like hormonally, genitally, reproductively, etc. none of which are simply \"your sex\".  The same applies to sexual partners. You say that your partners' genitals is important to you, but that's still not simply \"sex\". If you just put people into two buckets of biological males and females, you might actually lead yourself to *misunderstand* what genitals they might have.","human_ref_B":">I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be; when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education).  I have literally never known this to happen. It's one anecdote against another, but anecdotes aren't good bases for arguments anyway. How accepting is your community of transgender people? This seems akin to someone in a transitional identity phase dealing with an unwelcoming community, like atheists or agnostics referring to themselves as \"nonreligious\" or \"nones.\"  >This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women  I can't tell what \"unreliability\" you're referring to. Could you clarify?  >(I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is)  I don't understand. Gender and sex are two different aspects. Male and female are labels that we use to describe both sex and gender. That may lead to some confusion in people unfamiliar with the distinction but it's just an artifact of the natural evolution of language. Once we address the two uses of those terms it's not exactly an issue.  >but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  You don't have to treat them in any special way. You shouldn't be treating men or when in special ways either, beyond addressing the ways in which society already treats them differently. Non-binary people are just labeling their gender since society generally demands it.  >Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself?  No, because the larger systems of society (and plenty of individuals within it) treat people of different genders differently. You don't need to address gender when ordering a coffee, but it's relevant when people are deciding which bathroom to use in a society that insists on segregating them. In places where bathrooms are gender-neutral, whether single-occupant or multi-occupant, then the same applies as when at the Starbucks counter.  >Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns?  They're broadly the same thing, a result of the evolution of the discussion around gender and the pace at which much of bureaucracy moves, but many forms are moving in the latter direction anyway.  >Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   If you think something's being lost, state what it is. If all you can say is that you *feel* like something's being lost, then that's not an argument. Forms in contexts in which sex is *actually* relevant, like medical services, still ask for biological sex in addition to gender identity.  >As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have.  Landlords don't alter or select apartments for you according to your genitals. They ask this because it's often required to demonstrate non-discrimination. Have you actually experienced anything like this?  >I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you.  Tinder filters your match pool by gender. People find that useful. Many people are not attracted to others of the same gender regardless of biological sex.  >Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.  You're free to ask. How people respond to that question is up to them. But if you're asking them this before a first date, you're signalling to them that you're looking for sex on the first date.  >Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  Again, unreliable for what?  >I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.  It's in the sidebar. You can copy-paste the delta symbol there or type \"delta\" with an exclamation mark immediately in front. You will need to include a substantial explanation in your reply as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18632.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioyotqc","c_root_id_B":"ioxld6v","created_at_utc_A":1663527626,"created_at_utc_B":1663512497,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be; when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education).  I have literally never known this to happen. It's one anecdote against another, but anecdotes aren't good bases for arguments anyway. How accepting is your community of transgender people? This seems akin to someone in a transitional identity phase dealing with an unwelcoming community, like atheists or agnostics referring to themselves as \"nonreligious\" or \"nones.\"  >This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women  I can't tell what \"unreliability\" you're referring to. Could you clarify?  >(I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is)  I don't understand. Gender and sex are two different aspects. Male and female are labels that we use to describe both sex and gender. That may lead to some confusion in people unfamiliar with the distinction but it's just an artifact of the natural evolution of language. Once we address the two uses of those terms it's not exactly an issue.  >but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  You don't have to treat them in any special way. You shouldn't be treating men or when in special ways either, beyond addressing the ways in which society already treats them differently. Non-binary people are just labeling their gender since society generally demands it.  >Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself?  No, because the larger systems of society (and plenty of individuals within it) treat people of different genders differently. You don't need to address gender when ordering a coffee, but it's relevant when people are deciding which bathroom to use in a society that insists on segregating them. In places where bathrooms are gender-neutral, whether single-occupant or multi-occupant, then the same applies as when at the Starbucks counter.  >Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns?  They're broadly the same thing, a result of the evolution of the discussion around gender and the pace at which much of bureaucracy moves, but many forms are moving in the latter direction anyway.  >Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   If you think something's being lost, state what it is. If all you can say is that you *feel* like something's being lost, then that's not an argument. Forms in contexts in which sex is *actually* relevant, like medical services, still ask for biological sex in addition to gender identity.  >As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have.  Landlords don't alter or select apartments for you according to your genitals. They ask this because it's often required to demonstrate non-discrimination. Have you actually experienced anything like this?  >I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you.  Tinder filters your match pool by gender. People find that useful. Many people are not attracted to others of the same gender regardless of biological sex.  >Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.  You're free to ask. How people respond to that question is up to them. But if you're asking them this before a first date, you're signalling to them that you're looking for sex on the first date.  >Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  Again, unreliable for what?  >I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.  It's in the sidebar. You can copy-paste the delta symbol there or type \"delta\" with an exclamation mark immediately in front. You will need to include a substantial explanation in your reply as well.","human_ref_B":"After reading your responses in this thread I'm not sure what your view actually is.  Would it be correct to say that you agree that one's sex is irrelevant in almost every interaction you have with other people, but that you think gender is meaningless unless it relates to one's sex, therefore people should mention their sex instead?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15129.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioyotqc","c_root_id_B":"ioxam3s","created_at_utc_A":1663527626,"created_at_utc_B":1663507736,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be; when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education).  I have literally never known this to happen. It's one anecdote against another, but anecdotes aren't good bases for arguments anyway. How accepting is your community of transgender people? This seems akin to someone in a transitional identity phase dealing with an unwelcoming community, like atheists or agnostics referring to themselves as \"nonreligious\" or \"nones.\"  >This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women  I can't tell what \"unreliability\" you're referring to. Could you clarify?  >(I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is)  I don't understand. Gender and sex are two different aspects. Male and female are labels that we use to describe both sex and gender. That may lead to some confusion in people unfamiliar with the distinction but it's just an artifact of the natural evolution of language. Once we address the two uses of those terms it's not exactly an issue.  >but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  You don't have to treat them in any special way. You shouldn't be treating men or when in special ways either, beyond addressing the ways in which society already treats them differently. Non-binary people are just labeling their gender since society generally demands it.  >Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself?  No, because the larger systems of society (and plenty of individuals within it) treat people of different genders differently. You don't need to address gender when ordering a coffee, but it's relevant when people are deciding which bathroom to use in a society that insists on segregating them. In places where bathrooms are gender-neutral, whether single-occupant or multi-occupant, then the same applies as when at the Starbucks counter.  >Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns?  They're broadly the same thing, a result of the evolution of the discussion around gender and the pace at which much of bureaucracy moves, but many forms are moving in the latter direction anyway.  >Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   If you think something's being lost, state what it is. If all you can say is that you *feel* like something's being lost, then that's not an argument. Forms in contexts in which sex is *actually* relevant, like medical services, still ask for biological sex in addition to gender identity.  >As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have.  Landlords don't alter or select apartments for you according to your genitals. They ask this because it's often required to demonstrate non-discrimination. Have you actually experienced anything like this?  >I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you.  Tinder filters your match pool by gender. People find that useful. Many people are not attracted to others of the same gender regardless of biological sex.  >Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.  You're free to ask. How people respond to that question is up to them. But if you're asking them this before a first date, you're signalling to them that you're looking for sex on the first date.  >Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  Again, unreliable for what?  >I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.  It's in the sidebar. You can copy-paste the delta symbol there or type \"delta\" with an exclamation mark immediately in front. You will need to include a substantial explanation in your reply as well.","human_ref_B":"Pronouns aren't the only way that gender influences our language. I'd say that it's more common for me to be in an interaction where I'm directly referred to as a man than for me to be in an interaction where my sex is relevant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19890.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioyklk4","c_root_id_B":"ioyotqc","created_at_utc_A":1663526072,"created_at_utc_B":1663527626,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think gender discourse is not super important outside of niche interactions. Gender, itself, however is very important, as it dictates how society will treat you.  If you look like a cisgender man, society will treat you like one; if you look like a cisgender woman, society will treat you look one, and if you look like something in-between, society will treat you like something in-between.  For example, I identify as non-binary, but I don\u2019t go around sharing that information about myself with others, because 1) I realize how irrelevant it is to many, and 2) people don\u2019t really know all that much about transgender identities to really understand what I mean when I say I\u2019m non-binary.  There are a lot of people who have heard of the term \u201cnon-binary,\u201d but don\u2019t necessarily know what it means\u2014they just know it\u2019s associated pronouns (they\/them)\u2014and I think that\u2019s due to the fact that the \u201cnon-binary\u201d identity does not have an \u201caesthetic\u201d in the same way binary trans identities do.  When someone tells you they\u2019re a trans woman, you understand that they are a biological male who wishes to transition to look more female.  When someone tells you they\u2019re a trans man, you understand that they are a biological female who wishes to transition to look more male.  But when someone tells you they\u2019re non-binary, you\u2019re confused, because unlike the MtF and FtM identities, where you start at one sex and end at the other sex, non-binary people can start at either sex and end at their natal sex, an androgynous midpoint, or the opposite sex.  Simply put, both, men and women can identify as non-binary, and every non-binary person has a different way of expressing their gender:  A non-binary can choose to undergo hormone replacement therapy to help them reach an androgynous midpoint\u2014and sometimes even fully transition\u2014or they can choose to avoid hormones due to social, political, financial, and\/or health reasons, etc.  A non-binary person can choose to \u201ccross-dress\u201d to express themselves, or they can choose to wear clothes that are deemed socially acceptable for their perceived gender, because they\u2019re too exhausted to deal with the stares and\/or how people treat them when they\u2019re gender non-conforming.  If you were to see a non-binary person who has chosen to not medically transition on one of their \u201coff-days,\u201d you\u2019d think they\u2019re just a cisgender guy or gal, but as I mentioned, it\u2019s not our aesthetic that makes us non-binary. It\u2019s our lived experiences.  For cisgender people, using the restroom is as simple as going into the bathroom that matches their gender. For us non-binary people, it\u2019s about picking the lesser as two evils:  I am 5\u201911 biological male who\u2019s on hormones. I look womanly, but I don\u2019t pass as a cisgender woman. If I wear a dress, and I need to use the restroom, which restroom do I use? Do I walk into the men\u2019s and make men uncomfortable? Or do I walk into the women\u2019s and make women uncomfortable?  In my opinion, this is the peak non-binary experience. It\u2019s this feeling of being perceived as both sexes at the same time and having to deal with the social consequences of that.  One could argue that I could just cut my hair short and wear clothes that\u2019s deemed socially acceptable for my sex to make my life easier, but I don\u2019t think I should have do that in order better fit in.","human_ref_B":">I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be; when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education).  I have literally never known this to happen. It's one anecdote against another, but anecdotes aren't good bases for arguments anyway. How accepting is your community of transgender people? This seems akin to someone in a transitional identity phase dealing with an unwelcoming community, like atheists or agnostics referring to themselves as \"nonreligious\" or \"nones.\"  >This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women  I can't tell what \"unreliability\" you're referring to. Could you clarify?  >(I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is)  I don't understand. Gender and sex are two different aspects. Male and female are labels that we use to describe both sex and gender. That may lead to some confusion in people unfamiliar with the distinction but it's just an artifact of the natural evolution of language. Once we address the two uses of those terms it's not exactly an issue.  >but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  You don't have to treat them in any special way. You shouldn't be treating men or when in special ways either, beyond addressing the ways in which society already treats them differently. Non-binary people are just labeling their gender since society generally demands it.  >Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself?  No, because the larger systems of society (and plenty of individuals within it) treat people of different genders differently. You don't need to address gender when ordering a coffee, but it's relevant when people are deciding which bathroom to use in a society that insists on segregating them. In places where bathrooms are gender-neutral, whether single-occupant or multi-occupant, then the same applies as when at the Starbucks counter.  >Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns?  They're broadly the same thing, a result of the evolution of the discussion around gender and the pace at which much of bureaucracy moves, but many forms are moving in the latter direction anyway.  >Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   If you think something's being lost, state what it is. If all you can say is that you *feel* like something's being lost, then that's not an argument. Forms in contexts in which sex is *actually* relevant, like medical services, still ask for biological sex in addition to gender identity.  >As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have.  Landlords don't alter or select apartments for you according to your genitals. They ask this because it's often required to demonstrate non-discrimination. Have you actually experienced anything like this?  >I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you.  Tinder filters your match pool by gender. People find that useful. Many people are not attracted to others of the same gender regardless of biological sex.  >Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.  You're free to ask. How people respond to that question is up to them. But if you're asking them this before a first date, you're signalling to them that you're looking for sex on the first date.  >Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  Again, unreliable for what?  >I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.  It's in the sidebar. You can copy-paste the delta symbol there or type \"delta\" with an exclamation mark immediately in front. You will need to include a substantial explanation in your reply as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1554.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxate1","c_root_id_B":"ioyotqc","created_at_utc_A":1663507832,"created_at_utc_B":1663527626,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Do we need to use gender to refer to anyone at all much? Can we just use gender neutral terms unless it comes to specific sex based needs?  E.g. I try to call everyone \"they\" when I am referring to them, because what does it matter if they are male or female in our interactions   But if someone was talking about pregnancy, menstraul cycles, penis advice, sexuality and dating, drs, etc etc then you can clarify it's a she or he.   The only way I am unsure of this, is we do have unique experiences based on sex and how people see that sex or gender. And sometimes you want to talk to someone who goes through it too. Then it might also be relevant too.  But if im calling someone about my phone bill it doesn't make a difference what I am to you.","human_ref_B":">I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be; when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education).  I have literally never known this to happen. It's one anecdote against another, but anecdotes aren't good bases for arguments anyway. How accepting is your community of transgender people? This seems akin to someone in a transitional identity phase dealing with an unwelcoming community, like atheists or agnostics referring to themselves as \"nonreligious\" or \"nones.\"  >This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women  I can't tell what \"unreliability\" you're referring to. Could you clarify?  >(I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is)  I don't understand. Gender and sex are two different aspects. Male and female are labels that we use to describe both sex and gender. That may lead to some confusion in people unfamiliar with the distinction but it's just an artifact of the natural evolution of language. Once we address the two uses of those terms it's not exactly an issue.  >but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  You don't have to treat them in any special way. You shouldn't be treating men or when in special ways either, beyond addressing the ways in which society already treats them differently. Non-binary people are just labeling their gender since society generally demands it.  >Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself?  No, because the larger systems of society (and plenty of individuals within it) treat people of different genders differently. You don't need to address gender when ordering a coffee, but it's relevant when people are deciding which bathroom to use in a society that insists on segregating them. In places where bathrooms are gender-neutral, whether single-occupant or multi-occupant, then the same applies as when at the Starbucks counter.  >Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns?  They're broadly the same thing, a result of the evolution of the discussion around gender and the pace at which much of bureaucracy moves, but many forms are moving in the latter direction anyway.  >Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   If you think something's being lost, state what it is. If all you can say is that you *feel* like something's being lost, then that's not an argument. Forms in contexts in which sex is *actually* relevant, like medical services, still ask for biological sex in addition to gender identity.  >As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have.  Landlords don't alter or select apartments for you according to your genitals. They ask this because it's often required to demonstrate non-discrimination. Have you actually experienced anything like this?  >I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you.  Tinder filters your match pool by gender. People find that useful. Many people are not attracted to others of the same gender regardless of biological sex.  >Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.  You're free to ask. How people respond to that question is up to them. But if you're asking them this before a first date, you're signalling to them that you're looking for sex on the first date.  >Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  Again, unreliable for what?  >I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.  It's in the sidebar. You can copy-paste the delta symbol there or type \"delta\" with an exclamation mark immediately in front. You will need to include a substantial explanation in your reply as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19794.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioygzcj","c_root_id_B":"ioxdbau","created_at_utc_A":1663524752,"created_at_utc_B":1663508994,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If I have a non-binary friend who I'm referring to, its MUCH more of a weird, convoluted, and dickish thing for me to go \"My friend Ray, they - well, by the way, they're male - anyway, they xyz\", then it is for me to say \"Oh, my friend Ray - they play that game all the time\".   I have a close friend who is a trans man who has fully transitioned and it would be incredibly weird and asshole-y of me to specifically say that he was assigned female if referring to him or introducing him, rather than saying \"this is Dave, he... xyz\".  We refer to gender all the time when referring to other people, it's only because we're becoming culturally more aware of trans people that people are starting to feel like it's being done \"unnecessarily\". As a non-binary person, I want approximately zero people to be referring to me by my assigned gender, because it's not my gender, it's not what I go by, and it's not what I want others to call me by\/refer to me as. The people who need to know my assigned gender are my doctor and that's about it.","human_ref_B":">Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?  No, because while gender identity can be confusing or unintuitive way to categorize people, sex is EVEN MORE SO.  At the end of the day, all social self-labeling can be confusing or come with caveats, but at least it's a good faith attempt to identify people's social roles in social situations. Sure, no social group is a monolith, but social term are still more useful for categorizing their common traits, than shoehorning distantly related medical terms for social situations.  Even in the rare fringe examples where you actually need to talk to someone about your sex biology, largely untethered from your social roles, that's going to be either intuitive from your presentation like for 99% of people, or if it's not, then it's going to be a whole discussion.  Your doctor doesn't just care about a one word reference to what chromosomes you have, if it's not obvious from one look, then there is also going to be a whole discussion about what what your biology looks like hormonally, genitally, reproductively, etc. none of which are simply \"your sex\".  The same applies to sexual partners. You say that your partners' genitals is important to you, but that's still not simply \"sex\". If you just put people into two buckets of biological males and females, you might actually lead yourself to *misunderstand* what genitals they might have.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15758.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxld6v","c_root_id_B":"ioygzcj","created_at_utc_A":1663512497,"created_at_utc_B":1663524752,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"After reading your responses in this thread I'm not sure what your view actually is.  Would it be correct to say that you agree that one's sex is irrelevant in almost every interaction you have with other people, but that you think gender is meaningless unless it relates to one's sex, therefore people should mention their sex instead?","human_ref_B":">Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If I have a non-binary friend who I'm referring to, its MUCH more of a weird, convoluted, and dickish thing for me to go \"My friend Ray, they - well, by the way, they're male - anyway, they xyz\", then it is for me to say \"Oh, my friend Ray - they play that game all the time\".   I have a close friend who is a trans man who has fully transitioned and it would be incredibly weird and asshole-y of me to specifically say that he was assigned female if referring to him or introducing him, rather than saying \"this is Dave, he... xyz\".  We refer to gender all the time when referring to other people, it's only because we're becoming culturally more aware of trans people that people are starting to feel like it's being done \"unnecessarily\". As a non-binary person, I want approximately zero people to be referring to me by my assigned gender, because it's not my gender, it's not what I go by, and it's not what I want others to call me by\/refer to me as. The people who need to know my assigned gender are my doctor and that's about it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12255.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioygzcj","c_root_id_B":"ioxam3s","created_at_utc_A":1663524752,"created_at_utc_B":1663507736,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If I have a non-binary friend who I'm referring to, its MUCH more of a weird, convoluted, and dickish thing for me to go \"My friend Ray, they - well, by the way, they're male - anyway, they xyz\", then it is for me to say \"Oh, my friend Ray - they play that game all the time\".   I have a close friend who is a trans man who has fully transitioned and it would be incredibly weird and asshole-y of me to specifically say that he was assigned female if referring to him or introducing him, rather than saying \"this is Dave, he... xyz\".  We refer to gender all the time when referring to other people, it's only because we're becoming culturally more aware of trans people that people are starting to feel like it's being done \"unnecessarily\". As a non-binary person, I want approximately zero people to be referring to me by my assigned gender, because it's not my gender, it's not what I go by, and it's not what I want others to call me by\/refer to me as. The people who need to know my assigned gender are my doctor and that's about it.","human_ref_B":"Pronouns aren't the only way that gender influences our language. I'd say that it's more common for me to be in an interaction where I'm directly referred to as a man than for me to be in an interaction where my sex is relevant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17016.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxate1","c_root_id_B":"ioygzcj","created_at_utc_A":1663507832,"created_at_utc_B":1663524752,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Do we need to use gender to refer to anyone at all much? Can we just use gender neutral terms unless it comes to specific sex based needs?  E.g. I try to call everyone \"they\" when I am referring to them, because what does it matter if they are male or female in our interactions   But if someone was talking about pregnancy, menstraul cycles, penis advice, sexuality and dating, drs, etc etc then you can clarify it's a she or he.   The only way I am unsure of this, is we do have unique experiences based on sex and how people see that sex or gender. And sometimes you want to talk to someone who goes through it too. Then it might also be relevant too.  But if im calling someone about my phone bill it doesn't make a difference what I am to you.","human_ref_B":">Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If I have a non-binary friend who I'm referring to, its MUCH more of a weird, convoluted, and dickish thing for me to go \"My friend Ray, they - well, by the way, they're male - anyway, they xyz\", then it is for me to say \"Oh, my friend Ray - they play that game all the time\".   I have a close friend who is a trans man who has fully transitioned and it would be incredibly weird and asshole-y of me to specifically say that he was assigned female if referring to him or introducing him, rather than saying \"this is Dave, he... xyz\".  We refer to gender all the time when referring to other people, it's only because we're becoming culturally more aware of trans people that people are starting to feel like it's being done \"unnecessarily\". As a non-binary person, I want approximately zero people to be referring to me by my assigned gender, because it's not my gender, it's not what I go by, and it's not what I want others to call me by\/refer to me as. The people who need to know my assigned gender are my doctor and that's about it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16920.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxld6v","c_root_id_B":"ioxdbau","created_at_utc_A":1663512497,"created_at_utc_B":1663508994,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"After reading your responses in this thread I'm not sure what your view actually is.  Would it be correct to say that you agree that one's sex is irrelevant in almost every interaction you have with other people, but that you think gender is meaningless unless it relates to one's sex, therefore people should mention their sex instead?","human_ref_B":">Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?  No, because while gender identity can be confusing or unintuitive way to categorize people, sex is EVEN MORE SO.  At the end of the day, all social self-labeling can be confusing or come with caveats, but at least it's a good faith attempt to identify people's social roles in social situations. Sure, no social group is a monolith, but social term are still more useful for categorizing their common traits, than shoehorning distantly related medical terms for social situations.  Even in the rare fringe examples where you actually need to talk to someone about your sex biology, largely untethered from your social roles, that's going to be either intuitive from your presentation like for 99% of people, or if it's not, then it's going to be a whole discussion.  Your doctor doesn't just care about a one word reference to what chromosomes you have, if it's not obvious from one look, then there is also going to be a whole discussion about what what your biology looks like hormonally, genitally, reproductively, etc. none of which are simply \"your sex\".  The same applies to sexual partners. You say that your partners' genitals is important to you, but that's still not simply \"sex\". If you just put people into two buckets of biological males and females, you might actually lead yourself to *misunderstand* what genitals they might have.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3503.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxam3s","c_root_id_B":"ioxdbau","created_at_utc_A":1663507736,"created_at_utc_B":1663508994,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Pronouns aren't the only way that gender influences our language. I'd say that it's more common for me to be in an interaction where I'm directly referred to as a man than for me to be in an interaction where my sex is relevant.","human_ref_B":">Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?  No, because while gender identity can be confusing or unintuitive way to categorize people, sex is EVEN MORE SO.  At the end of the day, all social self-labeling can be confusing or come with caveats, but at least it's a good faith attempt to identify people's social roles in social situations. Sure, no social group is a monolith, but social term are still more useful for categorizing their common traits, than shoehorning distantly related medical terms for social situations.  Even in the rare fringe examples where you actually need to talk to someone about your sex biology, largely untethered from your social roles, that's going to be either intuitive from your presentation like for 99% of people, or if it's not, then it's going to be a whole discussion.  Your doctor doesn't just care about a one word reference to what chromosomes you have, if it's not obvious from one look, then there is also going to be a whole discussion about what what your biology looks like hormonally, genitally, reproductively, etc. none of which are simply \"your sex\".  The same applies to sexual partners. You say that your partners' genitals is important to you, but that's still not simply \"sex\". If you just put people into two buckets of biological males and females, you might actually lead yourself to *misunderstand* what genitals they might have.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1258.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxdbau","c_root_id_B":"ioxate1","created_at_utc_A":1663508994,"created_at_utc_B":1663507832,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?  No, because while gender identity can be confusing or unintuitive way to categorize people, sex is EVEN MORE SO.  At the end of the day, all social self-labeling can be confusing or come with caveats, but at least it's a good faith attempt to identify people's social roles in social situations. Sure, no social group is a monolith, but social term are still more useful for categorizing their common traits, than shoehorning distantly related medical terms for social situations.  Even in the rare fringe examples where you actually need to talk to someone about your sex biology, largely untethered from your social roles, that's going to be either intuitive from your presentation like for 99% of people, or if it's not, then it's going to be a whole discussion.  Your doctor doesn't just care about a one word reference to what chromosomes you have, if it's not obvious from one look, then there is also going to be a whole discussion about what what your biology looks like hormonally, genitally, reproductively, etc. none of which are simply \"your sex\".  The same applies to sexual partners. You say that your partners' genitals is important to you, but that's still not simply \"sex\". If you just put people into two buckets of biological males and females, you might actually lead yourself to *misunderstand* what genitals they might have.","human_ref_B":"Do we need to use gender to refer to anyone at all much? Can we just use gender neutral terms unless it comes to specific sex based needs?  E.g. I try to call everyone \"they\" when I am referring to them, because what does it matter if they are male or female in our interactions   But if someone was talking about pregnancy, menstraul cycles, penis advice, sexuality and dating, drs, etc etc then you can clarify it's a she or he.   The only way I am unsure of this, is we do have unique experiences based on sex and how people see that sex or gender. And sometimes you want to talk to someone who goes through it too. Then it might also be relevant too.  But if im calling someone about my phone bill it doesn't make a difference what I am to you.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1162.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxam3s","c_root_id_B":"ioxld6v","created_at_utc_A":1663507736,"created_at_utc_B":1663512497,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Pronouns aren't the only way that gender influences our language. I'd say that it's more common for me to be in an interaction where I'm directly referred to as a man than for me to be in an interaction where my sex is relevant.","human_ref_B":"After reading your responses in this thread I'm not sure what your view actually is.  Would it be correct to say that you agree that one's sex is irrelevant in almost every interaction you have with other people, but that you think gender is meaningless unless it relates to one's sex, therefore people should mention their sex instead?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4761.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxate1","c_root_id_B":"ioxld6v","created_at_utc_A":1663507832,"created_at_utc_B":1663512497,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Do we need to use gender to refer to anyone at all much? Can we just use gender neutral terms unless it comes to specific sex based needs?  E.g. I try to call everyone \"they\" when I am referring to them, because what does it matter if they are male or female in our interactions   But if someone was talking about pregnancy, menstraul cycles, penis advice, sexuality and dating, drs, etc etc then you can clarify it's a she or he.   The only way I am unsure of this, is we do have unique experiences based on sex and how people see that sex or gender. And sometimes you want to talk to someone who goes through it too. Then it might also be relevant too.  But if im calling someone about my phone bill it doesn't make a difference what I am to you.","human_ref_B":"After reading your responses in this thread I'm not sure what your view actually is.  Would it be correct to say that you agree that one's sex is irrelevant in almost every interaction you have with other people, but that you think gender is meaningless unless it relates to one's sex, therefore people should mention their sex instead?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4665.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"xhfz84","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Mentioning gender is unnecessary in all but the most niche interactions and informing people of one's sex makes more sense To start with some definitions:   By gender, I mean the cultural identity that loosely related to sex as a concept, but is not inherently bound to it. I believe this understanding coincides with how businesses and the dictionary defines it, but I recognize I could be misinterpreting something.  In this case, by unnecessary I mean that it is almost wholly irrelevant to every situation and conversation I can think of.  The core reason I hold this belief is because any one gender does not inherently allow anyone to safely draw any other conclusions. I have known male-identifying gay friends and acquaintances who will often refer to each-other as she and are more comfortable with those pronouns (or at least, they appear to be;  when I asked there was a lot of good-natured teasing and very little by way of helpful education). This unreliability is, of course, far less prevalent in those that are culturally men and women (I have no idea what the gender version of \"biological male\/female\" is), but when non-binary people are thrown into the mix, as I understand it one can't really derive anything specific about how one should treat them based on just that information.  Now, if there is no reliable conclusions to be drawn from gender, does that not make it a little pointless in all conversations not about gender itself? Wouldn't it simply be better to, instead of indicating one's gender on a form, simply leave it at jotting down one's pronouns? Also, since more and more forms seem to ask for gender instead of sex, isn't something being lost there?   As I see it, your landlord doesn't necessarily need to know a nebulous facet of your cultural identity, they need to know what to call you and what kind of hygiene needs you have. I can't think of what benefit knowing your gender would provide to a tinder date, as long as they know what to call you. Meanwhile, even as a bisexual myself, I still thoroughly appreciate knowing what's between someone's legs before a date for preparation purposes.   Even if mentioning one's sex is uncomfortable, wouldn't it be better to just leave the point unaddressed rather than use gender as an unreliable substitute?  If it helps, I'm coming from the perspective of a cisgendered man who has never been very active in LGBT spaces. As such, I fully realize I'm not exactly on the forefront of understanding in this field, and generally keep my opinions to myself. This has just always bugged me a little and I thought maybe I could learn where people are coming from.  Also, fair warning: I'm not 100% on how to award Deltas, so a little patience on that front would be greatly appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ioxate1","c_root_id_B":"ioyklk4","created_at_utc_A":1663507832,"created_at_utc_B":1663526072,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Do we need to use gender to refer to anyone at all much? Can we just use gender neutral terms unless it comes to specific sex based needs?  E.g. I try to call everyone \"they\" when I am referring to them, because what does it matter if they are male or female in our interactions   But if someone was talking about pregnancy, menstraul cycles, penis advice, sexuality and dating, drs, etc etc then you can clarify it's a she or he.   The only way I am unsure of this, is we do have unique experiences based on sex and how people see that sex or gender. And sometimes you want to talk to someone who goes through it too. Then it might also be relevant too.  But if im calling someone about my phone bill it doesn't make a difference what I am to you.","human_ref_B":"I think gender discourse is not super important outside of niche interactions. Gender, itself, however is very important, as it dictates how society will treat you.  If you look like a cisgender man, society will treat you like one; if you look like a cisgender woman, society will treat you look one, and if you look like something in-between, society will treat you like something in-between.  For example, I identify as non-binary, but I don\u2019t go around sharing that information about myself with others, because 1) I realize how irrelevant it is to many, and 2) people don\u2019t really know all that much about transgender identities to really understand what I mean when I say I\u2019m non-binary.  There are a lot of people who have heard of the term \u201cnon-binary,\u201d but don\u2019t necessarily know what it means\u2014they just know it\u2019s associated pronouns (they\/them)\u2014and I think that\u2019s due to the fact that the \u201cnon-binary\u201d identity does not have an \u201caesthetic\u201d in the same way binary trans identities do.  When someone tells you they\u2019re a trans woman, you understand that they are a biological male who wishes to transition to look more female.  When someone tells you they\u2019re a trans man, you understand that they are a biological female who wishes to transition to look more male.  But when someone tells you they\u2019re non-binary, you\u2019re confused, because unlike the MtF and FtM identities, where you start at one sex and end at the other sex, non-binary people can start at either sex and end at their natal sex, an androgynous midpoint, or the opposite sex.  Simply put, both, men and women can identify as non-binary, and every non-binary person has a different way of expressing their gender:  A non-binary can choose to undergo hormone replacement therapy to help them reach an androgynous midpoint\u2014and sometimes even fully transition\u2014or they can choose to avoid hormones due to social, political, financial, and\/or health reasons, etc.  A non-binary person can choose to \u201ccross-dress\u201d to express themselves, or they can choose to wear clothes that are deemed socially acceptable for their perceived gender, because they\u2019re too exhausted to deal with the stares and\/or how people treat them when they\u2019re gender non-conforming.  If you were to see a non-binary person who has chosen to not medically transition on one of their \u201coff-days,\u201d you\u2019d think they\u2019re just a cisgender guy or gal, but as I mentioned, it\u2019s not our aesthetic that makes us non-binary. It\u2019s our lived experiences.  For cisgender people, using the restroom is as simple as going into the bathroom that matches their gender. For us non-binary people, it\u2019s about picking the lesser as two evils:  I am 5\u201911 biological male who\u2019s on hormones. I look womanly, but I don\u2019t pass as a cisgender woman. If I wear a dress, and I need to use the restroom, which restroom do I use? Do I walk into the men\u2019s and make men uncomfortable? Or do I walk into the women\u2019s and make women uncomfortable?  In my opinion, this is the peak non-binary experience. It\u2019s this feeling of being perceived as both sexes at the same time and having to deal with the social consequences of that.  One could argue that I could just cut my hair short and wear clothes that\u2019s deemed socially acceptable for my sex to make my life easier, but I don\u2019t think I should have do that in order better fit in.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18240.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igny7hp","c_root_id_B":"igo0vok","created_at_utc_A":1658164293,"created_at_utc_B":1658165359,"score_A":27,"score_B":252,"human_ref_A":"Everything is context.  Are you trying to honestly defeat a point philosophically or trying to \"win\". Do you want converts or to protect your Overton window? Lets take an extreme example of holocaust denial. Frankly, the evidence is overwhelming and denial is in direct contradiction to history, monuments, living memory, well documented accounts, etc. To the point that I think anyone arguing against it is arguing in bad faith.   Now the problem is that some are \"good\" at arguing and can sound convincing. So in addition to arguing against their viewpoint, if in the public square, I may also want to make it clear that likeminded people think this person is either an idiot or evil. IT is an attack on them but I want the regular person to know that I will not be doing business or associating with these types of people.   I can see the value of trying to convince the racist their views are wrong from a place of empathy. I can also see the value in defending the overton window. I also agree that it goes much too far sometimes. For instance, I'll not be convinced abortion is okey dokey by being called a religious nutjob. But I can acknowledge the value of arguments around autonomy and primacy of a woman's choice.","human_ref_B":"The reason the Ku Klux Klan is no longer the powerful institution it once was is because there is a broad social consensus that the KKK is an evil organization with evil ideas.  Telling a Klansman that he is insane, idiotic and evil may not be persuasive to the Klansman, but it is persuasive to onlookers who know that associating with the Klan will get them ostracized from society at large.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1066.0,"score_ratio":9.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo01e2","c_root_id_B":"igo0vok","created_at_utc_A":1658165021,"created_at_utc_B":1658165359,"score_A":25,"score_B":252,"human_ref_A":"People are responsible for the people they empower.   The person who thinks that gay people shouldn't have rights and votes for anti gay candidates  should be called out for who they support and they harm that happens because they gave those people power.","human_ref_B":"The reason the Ku Klux Klan is no longer the powerful institution it once was is because there is a broad social consensus that the KKK is an evil organization with evil ideas.  Telling a Klansman that he is insane, idiotic and evil may not be persuasive to the Klansman, but it is persuasive to onlookers who know that associating with the Klan will get them ostracized from society at large.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":338.0,"score_ratio":10.08}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"ignywl3","c_root_id_B":"igo0vok","created_at_utc_A":1658164572,"created_at_utc_B":1658165359,"score_A":12,"score_B":252,"human_ref_A":"I believe there are three big problems with that type of view.   First, and probably most obvious, is that lots of political views will, by their very nature, carry implications about someone's character. The is no clear dividing lines between what I am - say an idiot - and the things I believe - idiotic things. This means debate can either slide into a discussion about someone's character or be interpreted as such by either side unilaterally. It's sort of unavoidable. What's more, some views are strong indicators that you are some or all of these bad things.   Second, people do insert themselves and others - as people, as political actors, as political objects, as moral entities, etc. - in debates *constantly*. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad, but it's sort of hard to ignore the fact that politics include people and influence their lives.   Third, and sort of meta I suppose, your particular position isn't super helpful without an example.","human_ref_B":"The reason the Ku Klux Klan is no longer the powerful institution it once was is because there is a broad social consensus that the KKK is an evil organization with evil ideas.  Telling a Klansman that he is insane, idiotic and evil may not be persuasive to the Klansman, but it is persuasive to onlookers who know that associating with the Klan will get them ostracized from society at large.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":787.0,"score_ratio":21.0}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo0vok","c_root_id_B":"igny550","created_at_utc_A":1658165359,"created_at_utc_B":1658164266,"score_A":252,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The reason the Ku Klux Klan is no longer the powerful institution it once was is because there is a broad social consensus that the KKK is an evil organization with evil ideas.  Telling a Klansman that he is insane, idiotic and evil may not be persuasive to the Klansman, but it is persuasive to onlookers who know that associating with the Klan will get them ostracized from society at large.","human_ref_B":"Out of interest, what % of online discourse is done in good faith?   My general experience is a large % of individuals are sharing opinion in bad faith. The most outrageous statements get interactions and promoted to the top.  You see every reply (good and bad combined), making it impossible to discuss ideas in a constructive manner.   Do you believe arguing against the idea fixes the good\/bad faith divide?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1093.0,"score_ratio":31.5}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo0vok","c_root_id_B":"ignzwt9","created_at_utc_A":1658165359,"created_at_utc_B":1658164972,"score_A":252,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The reason the Ku Klux Klan is no longer the powerful institution it once was is because there is a broad social consensus that the KKK is an evil organization with evil ideas.  Telling a Klansman that he is insane, idiotic and evil may not be persuasive to the Klansman, but it is persuasive to onlookers who know that associating with the Klan will get them ostracized from society at large.","human_ref_B":"Viewpoints and ideas are a reflection of the people that have them.   If you hold racist viewpoints, you are racist.   >I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Daryl Davis is a fraud.   https:\/\/justinward.medium.com\/daryl-davis-makes-a-new-friend-7a48bc43ad95","labels":1,"seconds_difference":387.0,"score_ratio":42.0}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo0vok","c_root_id_B":"igo07tj","created_at_utc_A":1658165359,"created_at_utc_B":1658165092,"score_A":252,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The reason the Ku Klux Klan is no longer the powerful institution it once was is because there is a broad social consensus that the KKK is an evil organization with evil ideas.  Telling a Klansman that he is insane, idiotic and evil may not be persuasive to the Klansman, but it is persuasive to onlookers who know that associating with the Klan will get them ostracized from society at large.","human_ref_B":"Not worth my time nor energy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":267.0,"score_ratio":36.0}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo3gts","c_root_id_B":"igny7hp","created_at_utc_A":1658166380,"created_at_utc_B":1658164293,"score_A":81,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"It is generally best to argue ideas so you're going to have to get into specific situations before you want to do otherwise  The first thing to note is if this is for in audience of more than just the person you are disagreeing with, arguing against the person themselves is useless if that is the only person you are speaking to  So let's say you do have an audience of sorts, I can see two clear cases where I would find it acceptable to argue against the person themselves rather than just their ideas, the first being if the person in question is an actual political candidate who will hold office if they win, in which case the kind of person they are very much does matter not just the ideas they say  The second case is much harder to discern, since you never truly know what is in someone's head, but when you believe someone is not arguing in good faith, things like attacking Straw Men they know good and well is not your position, the classic gish gallop, the I'm just asking questions despite very obviously implying the answers, and many other such tactics turn any attempt at reasonable discussion of ideas into a farce and this needs to be pointed out because they are incredibly dishonest but effective tools of persuasion and you can't really point that out without stating or at the very least implying dishonesty on the person you are arguing with","human_ref_B":"Everything is context.  Are you trying to honestly defeat a point philosophically or trying to \"win\". Do you want converts or to protect your Overton window? Lets take an extreme example of holocaust denial. Frankly, the evidence is overwhelming and denial is in direct contradiction to history, monuments, living memory, well documented accounts, etc. To the point that I think anyone arguing against it is arguing in bad faith.   Now the problem is that some are \"good\" at arguing and can sound convincing. So in addition to arguing against their viewpoint, if in the public square, I may also want to make it clear that likeminded people think this person is either an idiot or evil. IT is an attack on them but I want the regular person to know that I will not be doing business or associating with these types of people.   I can see the value of trying to convince the racist their views are wrong from a place of empathy. I can also see the value in defending the overton window. I also agree that it goes much too far sometimes. For instance, I'll not be convinced abortion is okey dokey by being called a religious nutjob. But I can acknowledge the value of arguments around autonomy and primacy of a woman's choice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2087.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo2kni","c_root_id_B":"igo3gts","created_at_utc_A":1658166028,"created_at_utc_B":1658166380,"score_A":24,"score_B":81,"human_ref_A":">I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Darly Davis, to the degree that he was effective at all (more than one person who claims to have turned has relapsed, or claimed that were never turned at all) didn't do what he did through \"discourse,\" he did it by spending a lot of time with people, empathizing, becoming friends with them (again, to the degree that he did anything at all). Political discourse is not a combination therapy and social work session. It's an argument between opposing sides. Nobody has the time to do that, nor should they be expected to  Would you tell, for example, gay people, that instead of telling people who insult them and throw slurs at them that they are wrong and should fuck off, that they must spend months of their lives befriending every homophobe they meet so they can put in hundreds of hours of unpaid therapy? That seems pretty fucked up. Just getting away from that stuff is simple harm mitigation   Should *actual* therapy from trained professionals be available for such people? Yes. But that's a seperate issue","human_ref_B":"It is generally best to argue ideas so you're going to have to get into specific situations before you want to do otherwise  The first thing to note is if this is for in audience of more than just the person you are disagreeing with, arguing against the person themselves is useless if that is the only person you are speaking to  So let's say you do have an audience of sorts, I can see two clear cases where I would find it acceptable to argue against the person themselves rather than just their ideas, the first being if the person in question is an actual political candidate who will hold office if they win, in which case the kind of person they are very much does matter not just the ideas they say  The second case is much harder to discern, since you never truly know what is in someone's head, but when you believe someone is not arguing in good faith, things like attacking Straw Men they know good and well is not your position, the classic gish gallop, the I'm just asking questions despite very obviously implying the answers, and many other such tactics turn any attempt at reasonable discussion of ideas into a farce and this needs to be pointed out because they are incredibly dishonest but effective tools of persuasion and you can't really point that out without stating or at the very least implying dishonesty on the person you are arguing with","labels":0,"seconds_difference":352.0,"score_ratio":3.375}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo01e2","c_root_id_B":"igo3gts","created_at_utc_A":1658165021,"created_at_utc_B":1658166380,"score_A":25,"score_B":81,"human_ref_A":"People are responsible for the people they empower.   The person who thinks that gay people shouldn't have rights and votes for anti gay candidates  should be called out for who they support and they harm that happens because they gave those people power.","human_ref_B":"It is generally best to argue ideas so you're going to have to get into specific situations before you want to do otherwise  The first thing to note is if this is for in audience of more than just the person you are disagreeing with, arguing against the person themselves is useless if that is the only person you are speaking to  So let's say you do have an audience of sorts, I can see two clear cases where I would find it acceptable to argue against the person themselves rather than just their ideas, the first being if the person in question is an actual political candidate who will hold office if they win, in which case the kind of person they are very much does matter not just the ideas they say  The second case is much harder to discern, since you never truly know what is in someone's head, but when you believe someone is not arguing in good faith, things like attacking Straw Men they know good and well is not your position, the classic gish gallop, the I'm just asking questions despite very obviously implying the answers, and many other such tactics turn any attempt at reasonable discussion of ideas into a farce and this needs to be pointed out because they are incredibly dishonest but effective tools of persuasion and you can't really point that out without stating or at the very least implying dishonesty on the person you are arguing with","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1359.0,"score_ratio":3.24}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo3cd8","c_root_id_B":"igo3gts","created_at_utc_A":1658166331,"created_at_utc_B":1658166380,"score_A":15,"score_B":81,"human_ref_A":"I think people who believe 10 year olds should give birth should be personally attacked. I don't think that's a particularly controversial stance though.","human_ref_B":"It is generally best to argue ideas so you're going to have to get into specific situations before you want to do otherwise  The first thing to note is if this is for in audience of more than just the person you are disagreeing with, arguing against the person themselves is useless if that is the only person you are speaking to  So let's say you do have an audience of sorts, I can see two clear cases where I would find it acceptable to argue against the person themselves rather than just their ideas, the first being if the person in question is an actual political candidate who will hold office if they win, in which case the kind of person they are very much does matter not just the ideas they say  The second case is much harder to discern, since you never truly know what is in someone's head, but when you believe someone is not arguing in good faith, things like attacking Straw Men they know good and well is not your position, the classic gish gallop, the I'm just asking questions despite very obviously implying the answers, and many other such tactics turn any attempt at reasonable discussion of ideas into a farce and this needs to be pointed out because they are incredibly dishonest but effective tools of persuasion and you can't really point that out without stating or at the very least implying dishonesty on the person you are arguing with","labels":0,"seconds_difference":49.0,"score_ratio":5.4}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo3gts","c_root_id_B":"ignywl3","created_at_utc_A":1658166380,"created_at_utc_B":1658164572,"score_A":81,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"It is generally best to argue ideas so you're going to have to get into specific situations before you want to do otherwise  The first thing to note is if this is for in audience of more than just the person you are disagreeing with, arguing against the person themselves is useless if that is the only person you are speaking to  So let's say you do have an audience of sorts, I can see two clear cases where I would find it acceptable to argue against the person themselves rather than just their ideas, the first being if the person in question is an actual political candidate who will hold office if they win, in which case the kind of person they are very much does matter not just the ideas they say  The second case is much harder to discern, since you never truly know what is in someone's head, but when you believe someone is not arguing in good faith, things like attacking Straw Men they know good and well is not your position, the classic gish gallop, the I'm just asking questions despite very obviously implying the answers, and many other such tactics turn any attempt at reasonable discussion of ideas into a farce and this needs to be pointed out because they are incredibly dishonest but effective tools of persuasion and you can't really point that out without stating or at the very least implying dishonesty on the person you are arguing with","human_ref_B":"I believe there are three big problems with that type of view.   First, and probably most obvious, is that lots of political views will, by their very nature, carry implications about someone's character. The is no clear dividing lines between what I am - say an idiot - and the things I believe - idiotic things. This means debate can either slide into a discussion about someone's character or be interpreted as such by either side unilaterally. It's sort of unavoidable. What's more, some views are strong indicators that you are some or all of these bad things.   Second, people do insert themselves and others - as people, as political actors, as political objects, as moral entities, etc. - in debates *constantly*. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad, but it's sort of hard to ignore the fact that politics include people and influence their lives.   Third, and sort of meta I suppose, your particular position isn't super helpful without an example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1808.0,"score_ratio":6.75}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo3gts","c_root_id_B":"igny550","created_at_utc_A":1658166380,"created_at_utc_B":1658164266,"score_A":81,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"It is generally best to argue ideas so you're going to have to get into specific situations before you want to do otherwise  The first thing to note is if this is for in audience of more than just the person you are disagreeing with, arguing against the person themselves is useless if that is the only person you are speaking to  So let's say you do have an audience of sorts, I can see two clear cases where I would find it acceptable to argue against the person themselves rather than just their ideas, the first being if the person in question is an actual political candidate who will hold office if they win, in which case the kind of person they are very much does matter not just the ideas they say  The second case is much harder to discern, since you never truly know what is in someone's head, but when you believe someone is not arguing in good faith, things like attacking Straw Men they know good and well is not your position, the classic gish gallop, the I'm just asking questions despite very obviously implying the answers, and many other such tactics turn any attempt at reasonable discussion of ideas into a farce and this needs to be pointed out because they are incredibly dishonest but effective tools of persuasion and you can't really point that out without stating or at the very least implying dishonesty on the person you are arguing with","human_ref_B":"Out of interest, what % of online discourse is done in good faith?   My general experience is a large % of individuals are sharing opinion in bad faith. The most outrageous statements get interactions and promoted to the top.  You see every reply (good and bad combined), making it impossible to discuss ideas in a constructive manner.   Do you believe arguing against the idea fixes the good\/bad faith divide?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2114.0,"score_ratio":10.125}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"ignzwt9","c_root_id_B":"igo3gts","created_at_utc_A":1658164972,"created_at_utc_B":1658166380,"score_A":6,"score_B":81,"human_ref_A":"Viewpoints and ideas are a reflection of the people that have them.   If you hold racist viewpoints, you are racist.   >I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Daryl Davis is a fraud.   https:\/\/justinward.medium.com\/daryl-davis-makes-a-new-friend-7a48bc43ad95","human_ref_B":"It is generally best to argue ideas so you're going to have to get into specific situations before you want to do otherwise  The first thing to note is if this is for in audience of more than just the person you are disagreeing with, arguing against the person themselves is useless if that is the only person you are speaking to  So let's say you do have an audience of sorts, I can see two clear cases where I would find it acceptable to argue against the person themselves rather than just their ideas, the first being if the person in question is an actual political candidate who will hold office if they win, in which case the kind of person they are very much does matter not just the ideas they say  The second case is much harder to discern, since you never truly know what is in someone's head, but when you believe someone is not arguing in good faith, things like attacking Straw Men they know good and well is not your position, the classic gish gallop, the I'm just asking questions despite very obviously implying the answers, and many other such tactics turn any attempt at reasonable discussion of ideas into a farce and this needs to be pointed out because they are incredibly dishonest but effective tools of persuasion and you can't really point that out without stating or at the very least implying dishonesty on the person you are arguing with","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1408.0,"score_ratio":13.5}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo3gts","c_root_id_B":"igo07tj","created_at_utc_A":1658166380,"created_at_utc_B":1658165092,"score_A":81,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It is generally best to argue ideas so you're going to have to get into specific situations before you want to do otherwise  The first thing to note is if this is for in audience of more than just the person you are disagreeing with, arguing against the person themselves is useless if that is the only person you are speaking to  So let's say you do have an audience of sorts, I can see two clear cases where I would find it acceptable to argue against the person themselves rather than just their ideas, the first being if the person in question is an actual political candidate who will hold office if they win, in which case the kind of person they are very much does matter not just the ideas they say  The second case is much harder to discern, since you never truly know what is in someone's head, but when you believe someone is not arguing in good faith, things like attacking Straw Men they know good and well is not your position, the classic gish gallop, the I'm just asking questions despite very obviously implying the answers, and many other such tactics turn any attempt at reasonable discussion of ideas into a farce and this needs to be pointed out because they are incredibly dishonest but effective tools of persuasion and you can't really point that out without stating or at the very least implying dishonesty on the person you are arguing with","human_ref_B":"Not worth my time nor energy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1288.0,"score_ratio":11.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo3gts","c_root_id_B":"igo3a0o","created_at_utc_A":1658166380,"created_at_utc_B":1658166305,"score_A":81,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It is generally best to argue ideas so you're going to have to get into specific situations before you want to do otherwise  The first thing to note is if this is for in audience of more than just the person you are disagreeing with, arguing against the person themselves is useless if that is the only person you are speaking to  So let's say you do have an audience of sorts, I can see two clear cases where I would find it acceptable to argue against the person themselves rather than just their ideas, the first being if the person in question is an actual political candidate who will hold office if they win, in which case the kind of person they are very much does matter not just the ideas they say  The second case is much harder to discern, since you never truly know what is in someone's head, but when you believe someone is not arguing in good faith, things like attacking Straw Men they know good and well is not your position, the classic gish gallop, the I'm just asking questions despite very obviously implying the answers, and many other such tactics turn any attempt at reasonable discussion of ideas into a farce and this needs to be pointed out because they are incredibly dishonest but effective tools of persuasion and you can't really point that out without stating or at the very least implying dishonesty on the person you are arguing with","human_ref_B":"Eh, I'm not so sure. Something I've been doing more recently, is not only considering my position, but also what other people I share that position with. If my position is one that is held by mostly idiots, I'll be more prone to reconsidering it, than if it's held by mostly intelligent\/knowledgeable people.  For example, I don't need to be able to debunk flat earthers' wacky physics in order to know that flat earthers are mostly idiots and unreliable sources of knowledge.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":75.0,"score_ratio":11.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igny7hp","c_root_id_B":"igny550","created_at_utc_A":1658164293,"created_at_utc_B":1658164266,"score_A":27,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Everything is context.  Are you trying to honestly defeat a point philosophically or trying to \"win\". Do you want converts or to protect your Overton window? Lets take an extreme example of holocaust denial. Frankly, the evidence is overwhelming and denial is in direct contradiction to history, monuments, living memory, well documented accounts, etc. To the point that I think anyone arguing against it is arguing in bad faith.   Now the problem is that some are \"good\" at arguing and can sound convincing. So in addition to arguing against their viewpoint, if in the public square, I may also want to make it clear that likeminded people think this person is either an idiot or evil. IT is an attack on them but I want the regular person to know that I will not be doing business or associating with these types of people.   I can see the value of trying to convince the racist their views are wrong from a place of empathy. I can also see the value in defending the overton window. I also agree that it goes much too far sometimes. For instance, I'll not be convinced abortion is okey dokey by being called a religious nutjob. But I can acknowledge the value of arguments around autonomy and primacy of a woman's choice.","human_ref_B":"Out of interest, what % of online discourse is done in good faith?   My general experience is a large % of individuals are sharing opinion in bad faith. The most outrageous statements get interactions and promoted to the top.  You see every reply (good and bad combined), making it impossible to discuss ideas in a constructive manner.   Do you believe arguing against the idea fixes the good\/bad faith divide?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27.0,"score_ratio":3.375}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"ignywl3","c_root_id_B":"igo2kni","created_at_utc_A":1658164572,"created_at_utc_B":1658166028,"score_A":12,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"I believe there are three big problems with that type of view.   First, and probably most obvious, is that lots of political views will, by their very nature, carry implications about someone's character. The is no clear dividing lines between what I am - say an idiot - and the things I believe - idiotic things. This means debate can either slide into a discussion about someone's character or be interpreted as such by either side unilaterally. It's sort of unavoidable. What's more, some views are strong indicators that you are some or all of these bad things.   Second, people do insert themselves and others - as people, as political actors, as political objects, as moral entities, etc. - in debates *constantly*. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad, but it's sort of hard to ignore the fact that politics include people and influence their lives.   Third, and sort of meta I suppose, your particular position isn't super helpful without an example.","human_ref_B":">I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Darly Davis, to the degree that he was effective at all (more than one person who claims to have turned has relapsed, or claimed that were never turned at all) didn't do what he did through \"discourse,\" he did it by spending a lot of time with people, empathizing, becoming friends with them (again, to the degree that he did anything at all). Political discourse is not a combination therapy and social work session. It's an argument between opposing sides. Nobody has the time to do that, nor should they be expected to  Would you tell, for example, gay people, that instead of telling people who insult them and throw slurs at them that they are wrong and should fuck off, that they must spend months of their lives befriending every homophobe they meet so they can put in hundreds of hours of unpaid therapy? That seems pretty fucked up. Just getting away from that stuff is simple harm mitigation   Should *actual* therapy from trained professionals be available for such people? Yes. But that's a seperate issue","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1456.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igny550","c_root_id_B":"igo2kni","created_at_utc_A":1658164266,"created_at_utc_B":1658166028,"score_A":8,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Out of interest, what % of online discourse is done in good faith?   My general experience is a large % of individuals are sharing opinion in bad faith. The most outrageous statements get interactions and promoted to the top.  You see every reply (good and bad combined), making it impossible to discuss ideas in a constructive manner.   Do you believe arguing against the idea fixes the good\/bad faith divide?","human_ref_B":">I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Darly Davis, to the degree that he was effective at all (more than one person who claims to have turned has relapsed, or claimed that were never turned at all) didn't do what he did through \"discourse,\" he did it by spending a lot of time with people, empathizing, becoming friends with them (again, to the degree that he did anything at all). Political discourse is not a combination therapy and social work session. It's an argument between opposing sides. Nobody has the time to do that, nor should they be expected to  Would you tell, for example, gay people, that instead of telling people who insult them and throw slurs at them that they are wrong and should fuck off, that they must spend months of their lives befriending every homophobe they meet so they can put in hundreds of hours of unpaid therapy? That seems pretty fucked up. Just getting away from that stuff is simple harm mitigation   Should *actual* therapy from trained professionals be available for such people? Yes. But that's a seperate issue","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1762.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo2kni","c_root_id_B":"ignzwt9","created_at_utc_A":1658166028,"created_at_utc_B":1658164972,"score_A":24,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Darly Davis, to the degree that he was effective at all (more than one person who claims to have turned has relapsed, or claimed that were never turned at all) didn't do what he did through \"discourse,\" he did it by spending a lot of time with people, empathizing, becoming friends with them (again, to the degree that he did anything at all). Political discourse is not a combination therapy and social work session. It's an argument between opposing sides. Nobody has the time to do that, nor should they be expected to  Would you tell, for example, gay people, that instead of telling people who insult them and throw slurs at them that they are wrong and should fuck off, that they must spend months of their lives befriending every homophobe they meet so they can put in hundreds of hours of unpaid therapy? That seems pretty fucked up. Just getting away from that stuff is simple harm mitigation   Should *actual* therapy from trained professionals be available for such people? Yes. But that's a seperate issue","human_ref_B":"Viewpoints and ideas are a reflection of the people that have them.   If you hold racist viewpoints, you are racist.   >I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Daryl Davis is a fraud.   https:\/\/justinward.medium.com\/daryl-davis-makes-a-new-friend-7a48bc43ad95","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1056.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo07tj","c_root_id_B":"igo2kni","created_at_utc_A":1658165092,"created_at_utc_B":1658166028,"score_A":7,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Not worth my time nor energy.","human_ref_B":">I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Darly Davis, to the degree that he was effective at all (more than one person who claims to have turned has relapsed, or claimed that were never turned at all) didn't do what he did through \"discourse,\" he did it by spending a lot of time with people, empathizing, becoming friends with them (again, to the degree that he did anything at all). Political discourse is not a combination therapy and social work session. It's an argument between opposing sides. Nobody has the time to do that, nor should they be expected to  Would you tell, for example, gay people, that instead of telling people who insult them and throw slurs at them that they are wrong and should fuck off, that they must spend months of their lives befriending every homophobe they meet so they can put in hundreds of hours of unpaid therapy? That seems pretty fucked up. Just getting away from that stuff is simple harm mitigation   Should *actual* therapy from trained professionals be available for such people? Yes. But that's a seperate issue","labels":0,"seconds_difference":936.0,"score_ratio":3.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo01e2","c_root_id_B":"ignywl3","created_at_utc_A":1658165021,"created_at_utc_B":1658164572,"score_A":25,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"People are responsible for the people they empower.   The person who thinks that gay people shouldn't have rights and votes for anti gay candidates  should be called out for who they support and they harm that happens because they gave those people power.","human_ref_B":"I believe there are three big problems with that type of view.   First, and probably most obvious, is that lots of political views will, by their very nature, carry implications about someone's character. The is no clear dividing lines between what I am - say an idiot - and the things I believe - idiotic things. This means debate can either slide into a discussion about someone's character or be interpreted as such by either side unilaterally. It's sort of unavoidable. What's more, some views are strong indicators that you are some or all of these bad things.   Second, people do insert themselves and others - as people, as political actors, as political objects, as moral entities, etc. - in debates *constantly*. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad, but it's sort of hard to ignore the fact that politics include people and influence their lives.   Third, and sort of meta I suppose, your particular position isn't super helpful without an example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":449.0,"score_ratio":2.0833333333}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igny550","c_root_id_B":"igo01e2","created_at_utc_A":1658164266,"created_at_utc_B":1658165021,"score_A":8,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Out of interest, what % of online discourse is done in good faith?   My general experience is a large % of individuals are sharing opinion in bad faith. The most outrageous statements get interactions and promoted to the top.  You see every reply (good and bad combined), making it impossible to discuss ideas in a constructive manner.   Do you believe arguing against the idea fixes the good\/bad faith divide?","human_ref_B":"People are responsible for the people they empower.   The person who thinks that gay people shouldn't have rights and votes for anti gay candidates  should be called out for who they support and they harm that happens because they gave those people power.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":755.0,"score_ratio":3.125}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"ignzwt9","c_root_id_B":"igo01e2","created_at_utc_A":1658164972,"created_at_utc_B":1658165021,"score_A":6,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Viewpoints and ideas are a reflection of the people that have them.   If you hold racist viewpoints, you are racist.   >I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Daryl Davis is a fraud.   https:\/\/justinward.medium.com\/daryl-davis-makes-a-new-friend-7a48bc43ad95","human_ref_B":"People are responsible for the people they empower.   The person who thinks that gay people shouldn't have rights and votes for anti gay candidates  should be called out for who they support and they harm that happens because they gave those people power.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":49.0,"score_ratio":4.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"ignywl3","c_root_id_B":"igocdx9","created_at_utc_A":1658164572,"created_at_utc_B":1658169905,"score_A":12,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I believe there are three big problems with that type of view.   First, and probably most obvious, is that lots of political views will, by their very nature, carry implications about someone's character. The is no clear dividing lines between what I am - say an idiot - and the things I believe - idiotic things. This means debate can either slide into a discussion about someone's character or be interpreted as such by either side unilaterally. It's sort of unavoidable. What's more, some views are strong indicators that you are some or all of these bad things.   Second, people do insert themselves and others - as people, as political actors, as political objects, as moral entities, etc. - in debates *constantly*. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad, but it's sort of hard to ignore the fact that politics include people and influence their lives.   Third, and sort of meta I suppose, your particular position isn't super helpful without an example.","human_ref_B":"In principle - sure. There is a reason that this sub doesn't permit generic insults directed at persons.   In practice, attacking ideas can almost always be construed as attacking the person. If I am arguing that a particular idea is racist, then by extension if anyone replies \"I hold that idea, you calling me a racist\", the only honest answer is yes.   If anyone who defends racist policy is a racist, then even if one is only attacking racist policy, you are by proxy attacking the identity of anyone who defends that policy.   So to the extent that one shouldn't throw generic insults around - yes. But to the extent that people take attacks upon ideas and turn those into attacks upon their character - you cannot really stop people from doing that. You just have to accept that some people are going to argue that way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5333.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igocdx9","c_root_id_B":"igo9v49","created_at_utc_A":1658169905,"created_at_utc_B":1658168910,"score_A":15,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"In principle - sure. There is a reason that this sub doesn't permit generic insults directed at persons.   In practice, attacking ideas can almost always be construed as attacking the person. If I am arguing that a particular idea is racist, then by extension if anyone replies \"I hold that idea, you calling me a racist\", the only honest answer is yes.   If anyone who defends racist policy is a racist, then even if one is only attacking racist policy, you are by proxy attacking the identity of anyone who defends that policy.   So to the extent that one shouldn't throw generic insults around - yes. But to the extent that people take attacks upon ideas and turn those into attacks upon their character - you cannot really stop people from doing that. You just have to accept that some people are going to argue that way.","human_ref_B":"If someone holds a racist political view that makes them racist....","labels":1,"seconds_difference":995.0,"score_ratio":1.3636363636}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igny550","c_root_id_B":"igocdx9","created_at_utc_A":1658164266,"created_at_utc_B":1658169905,"score_A":8,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Out of interest, what % of online discourse is done in good faith?   My general experience is a large % of individuals are sharing opinion in bad faith. The most outrageous statements get interactions and promoted to the top.  You see every reply (good and bad combined), making it impossible to discuss ideas in a constructive manner.   Do you believe arguing against the idea fixes the good\/bad faith divide?","human_ref_B":"In principle - sure. There is a reason that this sub doesn't permit generic insults directed at persons.   In practice, attacking ideas can almost always be construed as attacking the person. If I am arguing that a particular idea is racist, then by extension if anyone replies \"I hold that idea, you calling me a racist\", the only honest answer is yes.   If anyone who defends racist policy is a racist, then even if one is only attacking racist policy, you are by proxy attacking the identity of anyone who defends that policy.   So to the extent that one shouldn't throw generic insults around - yes. But to the extent that people take attacks upon ideas and turn those into attacks upon their character - you cannot really stop people from doing that. You just have to accept that some people are going to argue that way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5639.0,"score_ratio":1.875}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo7ohh","c_root_id_B":"igocdx9","created_at_utc_A":1658168044,"created_at_utc_B":1658169905,"score_A":9,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"What do you do when an individual makes a viewpoint the core of their identity?  Taking a dispassionate logical and well-reasoned approach will be viewed by these people as an attack on their identity. This is true of groups such as flat-earthers, Q-anon, religious individuals, etc.  This is not an excuse to be nasty, rude, or otherwise disrespectful to people.  As to your second point that the Daryl Davis approach it matters what scope you are talking about. On an individual level, the Davis approach is probably the correct one. The issue with the Davis approach is that it is simply not effective at scale. The amount of effort and time investment required for the Davis approach makes it completely ineffective at combatting misinformation and disinformation at scale. The velocity at which someone can make claims is much greater than the rate at which someone can debunk them.   Lastly, when dealing with someone who is debating\/engaging in bad faith it is appropriate to point that out. It is not worth one's time to engage with such an individual.","human_ref_B":"In principle - sure. There is a reason that this sub doesn't permit generic insults directed at persons.   In practice, attacking ideas can almost always be construed as attacking the person. If I am arguing that a particular idea is racist, then by extension if anyone replies \"I hold that idea, you calling me a racist\", the only honest answer is yes.   If anyone who defends racist policy is a racist, then even if one is only attacking racist policy, you are by proxy attacking the identity of anyone who defends that policy.   So to the extent that one shouldn't throw generic insults around - yes. But to the extent that people take attacks upon ideas and turn those into attacks upon their character - you cannot really stop people from doing that. You just have to accept that some people are going to argue that way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1861.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igocdx9","c_root_id_B":"ignzwt9","created_at_utc_A":1658169905,"created_at_utc_B":1658164972,"score_A":15,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"In principle - sure. There is a reason that this sub doesn't permit generic insults directed at persons.   In practice, attacking ideas can almost always be construed as attacking the person. If I am arguing that a particular idea is racist, then by extension if anyone replies \"I hold that idea, you calling me a racist\", the only honest answer is yes.   If anyone who defends racist policy is a racist, then even if one is only attacking racist policy, you are by proxy attacking the identity of anyone who defends that policy.   So to the extent that one shouldn't throw generic insults around - yes. But to the extent that people take attacks upon ideas and turn those into attacks upon their character - you cannot really stop people from doing that. You just have to accept that some people are going to argue that way.","human_ref_B":"Viewpoints and ideas are a reflection of the people that have them.   If you hold racist viewpoints, you are racist.   >I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Daryl Davis is a fraud.   https:\/\/justinward.medium.com\/daryl-davis-makes-a-new-friend-7a48bc43ad95","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4933.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo07tj","c_root_id_B":"igocdx9","created_at_utc_A":1658165092,"created_at_utc_B":1658169905,"score_A":7,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Not worth my time nor energy.","human_ref_B":"In principle - sure. There is a reason that this sub doesn't permit generic insults directed at persons.   In practice, attacking ideas can almost always be construed as attacking the person. If I am arguing that a particular idea is racist, then by extension if anyone replies \"I hold that idea, you calling me a racist\", the only honest answer is yes.   If anyone who defends racist policy is a racist, then even if one is only attacking racist policy, you are by proxy attacking the identity of anyone who defends that policy.   So to the extent that one shouldn't throw generic insults around - yes. But to the extent that people take attacks upon ideas and turn those into attacks upon their character - you cannot really stop people from doing that. You just have to accept that some people are going to argue that way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4813.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igocdx9","c_root_id_B":"igo3a0o","created_at_utc_A":1658169905,"created_at_utc_B":1658166305,"score_A":15,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"In principle - sure. There is a reason that this sub doesn't permit generic insults directed at persons.   In practice, attacking ideas can almost always be construed as attacking the person. If I am arguing that a particular idea is racist, then by extension if anyone replies \"I hold that idea, you calling me a racist\", the only honest answer is yes.   If anyone who defends racist policy is a racist, then even if one is only attacking racist policy, you are by proxy attacking the identity of anyone who defends that policy.   So to the extent that one shouldn't throw generic insults around - yes. But to the extent that people take attacks upon ideas and turn those into attacks upon their character - you cannot really stop people from doing that. You just have to accept that some people are going to argue that way.","human_ref_B":"Eh, I'm not so sure. Something I've been doing more recently, is not only considering my position, but also what other people I share that position with. If my position is one that is held by mostly idiots, I'll be more prone to reconsidering it, than if it's held by mostly intelligent\/knowledgeable people.  For example, I don't need to be able to debunk flat earthers' wacky physics in order to know that flat earthers are mostly idiots and unreliable sources of knowledge.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3600.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo3cd8","c_root_id_B":"ignywl3","created_at_utc_A":1658166331,"created_at_utc_B":1658164572,"score_A":15,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I think people who believe 10 year olds should give birth should be personally attacked. I don't think that's a particularly controversial stance though.","human_ref_B":"I believe there are three big problems with that type of view.   First, and probably most obvious, is that lots of political views will, by their very nature, carry implications about someone's character. The is no clear dividing lines between what I am - say an idiot - and the things I believe - idiotic things. This means debate can either slide into a discussion about someone's character or be interpreted as such by either side unilaterally. It's sort of unavoidable. What's more, some views are strong indicators that you are some or all of these bad things.   Second, people do insert themselves and others - as people, as political actors, as political objects, as moral entities, etc. - in debates *constantly*. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad, but it's sort of hard to ignore the fact that politics include people and influence their lives.   Third, and sort of meta I suppose, your particular position isn't super helpful without an example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1759.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo3cd8","c_root_id_B":"igny550","created_at_utc_A":1658166331,"created_at_utc_B":1658164266,"score_A":15,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think people who believe 10 year olds should give birth should be personally attacked. I don't think that's a particularly controversial stance though.","human_ref_B":"Out of interest, what % of online discourse is done in good faith?   My general experience is a large % of individuals are sharing opinion in bad faith. The most outrageous statements get interactions and promoted to the top.  You see every reply (good and bad combined), making it impossible to discuss ideas in a constructive manner.   Do you believe arguing against the idea fixes the good\/bad faith divide?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2065.0,"score_ratio":1.875}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo3cd8","c_root_id_B":"ignzwt9","created_at_utc_A":1658166331,"created_at_utc_B":1658164972,"score_A":15,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I think people who believe 10 year olds should give birth should be personally attacked. I don't think that's a particularly controversial stance though.","human_ref_B":"Viewpoints and ideas are a reflection of the people that have them.   If you hold racist viewpoints, you are racist.   >I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Daryl Davis is a fraud.   https:\/\/justinward.medium.com\/daryl-davis-makes-a-new-friend-7a48bc43ad95","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1359.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo3cd8","c_root_id_B":"igo07tj","created_at_utc_A":1658166331,"created_at_utc_B":1658165092,"score_A":15,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think people who believe 10 year olds should give birth should be personally attacked. I don't think that's a particularly controversial stance though.","human_ref_B":"Not worth my time nor energy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1239.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo3a0o","c_root_id_B":"igo3cd8","created_at_utc_A":1658166305,"created_at_utc_B":1658166331,"score_A":7,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Eh, I'm not so sure. Something I've been doing more recently, is not only considering my position, but also what other people I share that position with. If my position is one that is held by mostly idiots, I'll be more prone to reconsidering it, than if it's held by mostly intelligent\/knowledgeable people.  For example, I don't need to be able to debunk flat earthers' wacky physics in order to know that flat earthers are mostly idiots and unreliable sources of knowledge.","human_ref_B":"I think people who believe 10 year olds should give birth should be personally attacked. I don't think that's a particularly controversial stance though.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igny550","c_root_id_B":"ignywl3","created_at_utc_A":1658164266,"created_at_utc_B":1658164572,"score_A":8,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Out of interest, what % of online discourse is done in good faith?   My general experience is a large % of individuals are sharing opinion in bad faith. The most outrageous statements get interactions and promoted to the top.  You see every reply (good and bad combined), making it impossible to discuss ideas in a constructive manner.   Do you believe arguing against the idea fixes the good\/bad faith divide?","human_ref_B":"I believe there are three big problems with that type of view.   First, and probably most obvious, is that lots of political views will, by their very nature, carry implications about someone's character. The is no clear dividing lines between what I am - say an idiot - and the things I believe - idiotic things. This means debate can either slide into a discussion about someone's character or be interpreted as such by either side unilaterally. It's sort of unavoidable. What's more, some views are strong indicators that you are some or all of these bad things.   Second, people do insert themselves and others - as people, as political actors, as political objects, as moral entities, etc. - in debates *constantly*. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad, but it's sort of hard to ignore the fact that politics include people and influence their lives.   Third, and sort of meta I suppose, your particular position isn't super helpful without an example.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":306.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igny550","c_root_id_B":"igo9v49","created_at_utc_A":1658164266,"created_at_utc_B":1658168910,"score_A":8,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Out of interest, what % of online discourse is done in good faith?   My general experience is a large % of individuals are sharing opinion in bad faith. The most outrageous statements get interactions and promoted to the top.  You see every reply (good and bad combined), making it impossible to discuss ideas in a constructive manner.   Do you believe arguing against the idea fixes the good\/bad faith divide?","human_ref_B":"If someone holds a racist political view that makes them racist....","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4644.0,"score_ratio":1.375}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo7ohh","c_root_id_B":"igo9v49","created_at_utc_A":1658168044,"created_at_utc_B":1658168910,"score_A":9,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"What do you do when an individual makes a viewpoint the core of their identity?  Taking a dispassionate logical and well-reasoned approach will be viewed by these people as an attack on their identity. This is true of groups such as flat-earthers, Q-anon, religious individuals, etc.  This is not an excuse to be nasty, rude, or otherwise disrespectful to people.  As to your second point that the Daryl Davis approach it matters what scope you are talking about. On an individual level, the Davis approach is probably the correct one. The issue with the Davis approach is that it is simply not effective at scale. The amount of effort and time investment required for the Davis approach makes it completely ineffective at combatting misinformation and disinformation at scale. The velocity at which someone can make claims is much greater than the rate at which someone can debunk them.   Lastly, when dealing with someone who is debating\/engaging in bad faith it is appropriate to point that out. It is not worth one's time to engage with such an individual.","human_ref_B":"If someone holds a racist political view that makes them racist....","labels":0,"seconds_difference":866.0,"score_ratio":1.2222222222}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"ignzwt9","c_root_id_B":"igo9v49","created_at_utc_A":1658164972,"created_at_utc_B":1658168910,"score_A":6,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Viewpoints and ideas are a reflection of the people that have them.   If you hold racist viewpoints, you are racist.   >I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Daryl Davis is a fraud.   https:\/\/justinward.medium.com\/daryl-davis-makes-a-new-friend-7a48bc43ad95","human_ref_B":"If someone holds a racist political view that makes them racist....","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3938.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo9v49","c_root_id_B":"igo07tj","created_at_utc_A":1658168910,"created_at_utc_B":1658165092,"score_A":11,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"If someone holds a racist political view that makes them racist....","human_ref_B":"Not worth my time nor energy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3818.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo9v49","c_root_id_B":"igo3a0o","created_at_utc_A":1658168910,"created_at_utc_B":1658166305,"score_A":11,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"If someone holds a racist political view that makes them racist....","human_ref_B":"Eh, I'm not so sure. Something I've been doing more recently, is not only considering my position, but also what other people I share that position with. If my position is one that is held by mostly idiots, I'll be more prone to reconsidering it, than if it's held by mostly intelligent\/knowledgeable people.  For example, I don't need to be able to debunk flat earthers' wacky physics in order to know that flat earthers are mostly idiots and unreliable sources of knowledge.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2605.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo7ohh","c_root_id_B":"igny550","created_at_utc_A":1658168044,"created_at_utc_B":1658164266,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"What do you do when an individual makes a viewpoint the core of their identity?  Taking a dispassionate logical and well-reasoned approach will be viewed by these people as an attack on their identity. This is true of groups such as flat-earthers, Q-anon, religious individuals, etc.  This is not an excuse to be nasty, rude, or otherwise disrespectful to people.  As to your second point that the Daryl Davis approach it matters what scope you are talking about. On an individual level, the Davis approach is probably the correct one. The issue with the Davis approach is that it is simply not effective at scale. The amount of effort and time investment required for the Davis approach makes it completely ineffective at combatting misinformation and disinformation at scale. The velocity at which someone can make claims is much greater than the rate at which someone can debunk them.   Lastly, when dealing with someone who is debating\/engaging in bad faith it is appropriate to point that out. It is not worth one's time to engage with such an individual.","human_ref_B":"Out of interest, what % of online discourse is done in good faith?   My general experience is a large % of individuals are sharing opinion in bad faith. The most outrageous statements get interactions and promoted to the top.  You see every reply (good and bad combined), making it impossible to discuss ideas in a constructive manner.   Do you believe arguing against the idea fixes the good\/bad faith divide?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3778.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo7ohh","c_root_id_B":"ignzwt9","created_at_utc_A":1658168044,"created_at_utc_B":1658164972,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"What do you do when an individual makes a viewpoint the core of their identity?  Taking a dispassionate logical and well-reasoned approach will be viewed by these people as an attack on their identity. This is true of groups such as flat-earthers, Q-anon, religious individuals, etc.  This is not an excuse to be nasty, rude, or otherwise disrespectful to people.  As to your second point that the Daryl Davis approach it matters what scope you are talking about. On an individual level, the Davis approach is probably the correct one. The issue with the Davis approach is that it is simply not effective at scale. The amount of effort and time investment required for the Davis approach makes it completely ineffective at combatting misinformation and disinformation at scale. The velocity at which someone can make claims is much greater than the rate at which someone can debunk them.   Lastly, when dealing with someone who is debating\/engaging in bad faith it is appropriate to point that out. It is not worth one's time to engage with such an individual.","human_ref_B":"Viewpoints and ideas are a reflection of the people that have them.   If you hold racist viewpoints, you are racist.   >I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Daryl Davis is a fraud.   https:\/\/justinward.medium.com\/daryl-davis-makes-a-new-friend-7a48bc43ad95","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3072.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo7ohh","c_root_id_B":"igo07tj","created_at_utc_A":1658168044,"created_at_utc_B":1658165092,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"What do you do when an individual makes a viewpoint the core of their identity?  Taking a dispassionate logical and well-reasoned approach will be viewed by these people as an attack on their identity. This is true of groups such as flat-earthers, Q-anon, religious individuals, etc.  This is not an excuse to be nasty, rude, or otherwise disrespectful to people.  As to your second point that the Daryl Davis approach it matters what scope you are talking about. On an individual level, the Davis approach is probably the correct one. The issue with the Davis approach is that it is simply not effective at scale. The amount of effort and time investment required for the Davis approach makes it completely ineffective at combatting misinformation and disinformation at scale. The velocity at which someone can make claims is much greater than the rate at which someone can debunk them.   Lastly, when dealing with someone who is debating\/engaging in bad faith it is appropriate to point that out. It is not worth one's time to engage with such an individual.","human_ref_B":"Not worth my time nor energy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2952.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"igo7ohh","c_root_id_B":"igo3a0o","created_at_utc_A":1658168044,"created_at_utc_B":1658166305,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"What do you do when an individual makes a viewpoint the core of their identity?  Taking a dispassionate logical and well-reasoned approach will be viewed by these people as an attack on their identity. This is true of groups such as flat-earthers, Q-anon, religious individuals, etc.  This is not an excuse to be nasty, rude, or otherwise disrespectful to people.  As to your second point that the Daryl Davis approach it matters what scope you are talking about. On an individual level, the Davis approach is probably the correct one. The issue with the Davis approach is that it is simply not effective at scale. The amount of effort and time investment required for the Davis approach makes it completely ineffective at combatting misinformation and disinformation at scale. The velocity at which someone can make claims is much greater than the rate at which someone can debunk them.   Lastly, when dealing with someone who is debating\/engaging in bad faith it is appropriate to point that out. It is not worth one's time to engage with such an individual.","human_ref_B":"Eh, I'm not so sure. Something I've been doing more recently, is not only considering my position, but also what other people I share that position with. If my position is one that is held by mostly idiots, I'll be more prone to reconsidering it, than if it's held by mostly intelligent\/knowledgeable people.  For example, I don't need to be able to debunk flat earthers' wacky physics in order to know that flat earthers are mostly idiots and unreliable sources of knowledge.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1739.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"ignzwt9","c_root_id_B":"igo07tj","created_at_utc_A":1658164972,"created_at_utc_B":1658165092,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Viewpoints and ideas are a reflection of the people that have them.   If you hold racist viewpoints, you are racist.   >I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Daryl Davis is a fraud.   https:\/\/justinward.medium.com\/daryl-davis-makes-a-new-friend-7a48bc43ad95","human_ref_B":"Not worth my time nor energy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":120.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"w24g58","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: In discourse, especially political, one should argue against their opposite\u2019s viewpoint and ideas and not against the person themselves. Across most platforms on the internet I\u2019ve seen the debate get boiled down to: \u201cIf you don\u2019t think the way I do you\u2019re an idiot, insane, evil, etc.\u201d   I believe that this does nothing but further deviates us. It creates much more harm than good and devolves the debate into slander and chaos. This expanding divide will bring about much worse things to come.   I believe in taking a \u201chigh road\u201d defending my points against the views of others. I believe it is much easier to change a persons mind through positive change rather than attacking someone\u2019s identity.   I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Without this expanding to larger topics I\u2019ll stop there. Without this I have major concerns with what the world will become in my lifetime and what world my children will inherit.","c_root_id_A":"ignzwt9","c_root_id_B":"igo3a0o","created_at_utc_A":1658164972,"created_at_utc_B":1658166305,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Viewpoints and ideas are a reflection of the people that have them.   If you hold racist viewpoints, you are racist.   >I look at Daryl Davis as someone who is able to do this correctly.   Daryl Davis is a fraud.   https:\/\/justinward.medium.com\/daryl-davis-makes-a-new-friend-7a48bc43ad95","human_ref_B":"Eh, I'm not so sure. Something I've been doing more recently, is not only considering my position, but also what other people I share that position with. If my position is one that is held by mostly idiots, I'll be more prone to reconsidering it, than if it's held by mostly intelligent\/knowledgeable people.  For example, I don't need to be able to debunk flat earthers' wacky physics in order to know that flat earthers are mostly idiots and unreliable sources of knowledge.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1333.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"dwyoyx","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Disney\/Pixar's \"Cars\" movies are severly under-appreciated works of genius and deserve a spot at the top amongst the best animated films of all time.   Disney\/Pixar's \"Cars\" movies are severly under-appreciated works of genius and deserve a spot at the top amongst the best Animated films of all time.  The Cars Films are works of pure genius. Lightning, Mater, Doc, Sally and even the lesser characters are all amazing characters and we're perfectly cast. The stories are fantastic as well embracing all the feels. I LMAO, and tear up everytime I watch these movies.\u00a0   The visuals are great, the animation is on par with other top Pixar\/Animated films and still holds up after all these years. The backdrop, setting and score are also amazing.\u00a0   I can literally find no reason that these films are constantly at the bottom of every Disney\/Pixar list. In fact, I think the cars movies are overall better than movies like Ratatouille, Coco or even Monsters University that hold higher positions thank Cars. The only reason I can imagine that they're not is because people mistakenly think it's Pixer's version of NASCAR.\u00a0  I think that the Cars movies should be regarded as classic works of genus up there with Toy Story, Finding Nemo etc. Top five at lest.","c_root_id_A":"f7n4nj5","c_root_id_B":"f7mvdlk","created_at_utc_A":1573884127,"created_at_utc_B":1573874908,"score_A":18,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"So I don't remember where I saw this, probably some video essay uploaded by some film studies undergrad on YouTube that popped into my feed, but when talking about Pixar, most of their films involving non-human characters, their non-humaness actually influences the characters and the story. Could you make all the characters human and tell the same story?  Toy story, no.  A bug's life, no.  Monsters Inc, no.  Ratatouille, no.  Finding Nemo, no.  Wall-e, no.  Cars, yes.    If the story was about a racecar driver getting stuck in some town, you could pretty much tell the same story with human characters, and it would actually make a lot more sense.  It requires a level of suspension of disbelief that isn't really required in any other Pixar franchise.  Who built the cars, where did their infrastructure come from, how do they do all this stuff with no hands, was lightning McQueen built a racecar or did he turn into one, how does romance work between cars?    Every other Pixar movie seems to have a much more grounded premise.  The toys in your bedroom are alive and want to be played with, the monsters in your closet need your scream energy, there are ants in an epic struggle against grasshoppers, here is a rat that aspires to be a chef. Etc.  Cars?  Ehh, it feels more like, \"we need to produce another movie franchise with a marketable toy line like Toy Story.\" And I think more cynical critics and adult audiences understand that's what's happening.  Ive only watched the first Cars (numerous times because I also have a young son), but none of the others (they aren't on Netflix where I live.), And I really liked it.  I thought the story was good, the visuals were great, and it had nice character development.  As far as character list, I liked lightning and doc, Sally was... fine but a bit of a cookie cutter.  Mater is ok for comic relief.  The 2 Italian cars were pretty good.  I also liked mac.  The other townspeople are mostly forgetable. Pixar has made more memorable bit characters in other movies.  Finding Nemo had a bunch, the sharks, the turtles, the tank fish, the schoolmates.","human_ref_B":"Cars was good but it just wasn\u2019t as good as other Pixar films. It\u2019s difficult to rank such good films so I think subjectivity plays into it. Car\u2019s storyline was good but just less relatable then the other movies and just less original. Personified machines are also just not that original, after all we\u2019ve all seen Thomas the train and the idea just doesn\u2019t much magic for most people. Most audiences have never seen anything like Coco, it was exposure to a new culture and just so whimsical but familiar and heartfelt because of the family bonds centric storyline . Toy story made a suggestion that we\u2019ve all thought of at one point and showed what it might look like so the concept of it is really intriguing and then it also had a great story.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9219.0,"score_ratio":3.6}
+{"post_id":"dwyoyx","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Disney\/Pixar's \"Cars\" movies are severly under-appreciated works of genius and deserve a spot at the top amongst the best animated films of all time.   Disney\/Pixar's \"Cars\" movies are severly under-appreciated works of genius and deserve a spot at the top amongst the best Animated films of all time.  The Cars Films are works of pure genius. Lightning, Mater, Doc, Sally and even the lesser characters are all amazing characters and we're perfectly cast. The stories are fantastic as well embracing all the feels. I LMAO, and tear up everytime I watch these movies.\u00a0   The visuals are great, the animation is on par with other top Pixar\/Animated films and still holds up after all these years. The backdrop, setting and score are also amazing.\u00a0   I can literally find no reason that these films are constantly at the bottom of every Disney\/Pixar list. In fact, I think the cars movies are overall better than movies like Ratatouille, Coco or even Monsters University that hold higher positions thank Cars. The only reason I can imagine that they're not is because people mistakenly think it's Pixer's version of NASCAR.\u00a0  I think that the Cars movies should be regarded as classic works of genus up there with Toy Story, Finding Nemo etc. Top five at lest.","c_root_id_A":"f7n3m23","c_root_id_B":"f7n4nj5","created_at_utc_A":1573882978,"created_at_utc_B":1573884127,"score_A":3,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I like \"Cars\" and its sequals, but I would easily rate any of the movies you counted as less good as better.   \"Coco\" explores themes that the Cars movies never get onto, that many kids movies never get onto. And it explores a culture that not many mainstream movies showecast. It is incredibly pretty, and it has music I enjoy. Plus, it makes me feel deeper than \"Cars\" .   Monster's University shows that sometimes you can try your best, but that may still not be good enough. But also, that this does not mean you should not try. That you still may get something good out of the process itself. It manages to be uplifting despite this theme. That's important in a society where kids are always told they can be anything, but where many young adults feel drifting and lost.  Ratatoiulle is just incredibly fun. It's not as deep as the other two movies, but if has a great moral, and it has a rat being the good guy. That does happen less than stories that have animated machines.    ---  Also, many people seriousely dislike Mater and think he is the annoying kind of comic relief. I also kmow that the second movie suddendly going all spy movie parody and Mater heavy annoys some people. I still enjoyed it, but I DID find the change in genre a bit off putting at first.","human_ref_B":"So I don't remember where I saw this, probably some video essay uploaded by some film studies undergrad on YouTube that popped into my feed, but when talking about Pixar, most of their films involving non-human characters, their non-humaness actually influences the characters and the story. Could you make all the characters human and tell the same story?  Toy story, no.  A bug's life, no.  Monsters Inc, no.  Ratatouille, no.  Finding Nemo, no.  Wall-e, no.  Cars, yes.    If the story was about a racecar driver getting stuck in some town, you could pretty much tell the same story with human characters, and it would actually make a lot more sense.  It requires a level of suspension of disbelief that isn't really required in any other Pixar franchise.  Who built the cars, where did their infrastructure come from, how do they do all this stuff with no hands, was lightning McQueen built a racecar or did he turn into one, how does romance work between cars?    Every other Pixar movie seems to have a much more grounded premise.  The toys in your bedroom are alive and want to be played with, the monsters in your closet need your scream energy, there are ants in an epic struggle against grasshoppers, here is a rat that aspires to be a chef. Etc.  Cars?  Ehh, it feels more like, \"we need to produce another movie franchise with a marketable toy line like Toy Story.\" And I think more cynical critics and adult audiences understand that's what's happening.  Ive only watched the first Cars (numerous times because I also have a young son), but none of the others (they aren't on Netflix where I live.), And I really liked it.  I thought the story was good, the visuals were great, and it had nice character development.  As far as character list, I liked lightning and doc, Sally was... fine but a bit of a cookie cutter.  Mater is ok for comic relief.  The 2 Italian cars were pretty good.  I also liked mac.  The other townspeople are mostly forgetable. Pixar has made more memorable bit characters in other movies.  Finding Nemo had a bunch, the sharks, the turtles, the tank fish, the schoolmates.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1149.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"dwyoyx","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Disney\/Pixar's \"Cars\" movies are severly under-appreciated works of genius and deserve a spot at the top amongst the best animated films of all time.   Disney\/Pixar's \"Cars\" movies are severly under-appreciated works of genius and deserve a spot at the top amongst the best Animated films of all time.  The Cars Films are works of pure genius. Lightning, Mater, Doc, Sally and even the lesser characters are all amazing characters and we're perfectly cast. The stories are fantastic as well embracing all the feels. I LMAO, and tear up everytime I watch these movies.\u00a0   The visuals are great, the animation is on par with other top Pixar\/Animated films and still holds up after all these years. The backdrop, setting and score are also amazing.\u00a0   I can literally find no reason that these films are constantly at the bottom of every Disney\/Pixar list. In fact, I think the cars movies are overall better than movies like Ratatouille, Coco or even Monsters University that hold higher positions thank Cars. The only reason I can imagine that they're not is because people mistakenly think it's Pixer's version of NASCAR.\u00a0  I think that the Cars movies should be regarded as classic works of genus up there with Toy Story, Finding Nemo etc. Top five at lest.","c_root_id_A":"f7n4nj5","c_root_id_B":"f7n4d97","created_at_utc_A":1573884127,"created_at_utc_B":1573883821,"score_A":18,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So I don't remember where I saw this, probably some video essay uploaded by some film studies undergrad on YouTube that popped into my feed, but when talking about Pixar, most of their films involving non-human characters, their non-humaness actually influences the characters and the story. Could you make all the characters human and tell the same story?  Toy story, no.  A bug's life, no.  Monsters Inc, no.  Ratatouille, no.  Finding Nemo, no.  Wall-e, no.  Cars, yes.    If the story was about a racecar driver getting stuck in some town, you could pretty much tell the same story with human characters, and it would actually make a lot more sense.  It requires a level of suspension of disbelief that isn't really required in any other Pixar franchise.  Who built the cars, where did their infrastructure come from, how do they do all this stuff with no hands, was lightning McQueen built a racecar or did he turn into one, how does romance work between cars?    Every other Pixar movie seems to have a much more grounded premise.  The toys in your bedroom are alive and want to be played with, the monsters in your closet need your scream energy, there are ants in an epic struggle against grasshoppers, here is a rat that aspires to be a chef. Etc.  Cars?  Ehh, it feels more like, \"we need to produce another movie franchise with a marketable toy line like Toy Story.\" And I think more cynical critics and adult audiences understand that's what's happening.  Ive only watched the first Cars (numerous times because I also have a young son), but none of the others (they aren't on Netflix where I live.), And I really liked it.  I thought the story was good, the visuals were great, and it had nice character development.  As far as character list, I liked lightning and doc, Sally was... fine but a bit of a cookie cutter.  Mater is ok for comic relief.  The 2 Italian cars were pretty good.  I also liked mac.  The other townspeople are mostly forgetable. Pixar has made more memorable bit characters in other movies.  Finding Nemo had a bunch, the sharks, the turtles, the tank fish, the schoolmates.","human_ref_B":"Cars is a good movie, I enjoyed it, but it's basically an animated Doc Hollywood.  Cars 2 was not great.  Cars 3 was really good, the best of them I think.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":306.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5m9cqo","c_root_id_B":"i5m9q7f","created_at_utc_A":1650549886,"created_at_utc_B":1650550045,"score_A":13,"score_B":70,"human_ref_A":"Aside from some sort of survey of every man who comments on it, what sort of evidence could possibly convince you otherwise?","human_ref_B":"I don't think they WANT to be victims, just want to point out when they really are, or at least be able to have the convo. Look at this whole controversy, it's like a meta-controversy about him being a victim. We can't even just let a man be a victim, we have to turn it into another issue","labels":0,"seconds_difference":159.0,"score_ratio":5.3846153846}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5m9xay","c_root_id_B":"i5matwo","created_at_utc_A":1650550129,"created_at_utc_B":1650550514,"score_A":47,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":"It's not often domestic abuse against men gets any serious consideration in the media. Depp may not be the poster boy they'd want. But if it takes a wacko celebrity to get the news to talk about the issue, you take what you can get.","human_ref_B":"Okay, abuse victims aren't perfect.  Celebrity abuse victims even less so.  So what?  Male abuse victims exist, and they're going to see themselves in Depp because his story is very similar to how F\/M abusive dynamics play out in the real world.  Female abusers of men very often pre-empt their victim taking action by claiming abuse first.  Sometimed there's a grain of truth to it - whether the relationship is mutually toxic or he retaliated after a long period of abuse - but sometimes there isn't and the abuse is truly unilateral.  In either case, the abuser claiming to be a victim rather than a perpetrator is false.  Having volunteered for organizations working to prevent domestic violence, I've seen stories like Depp's, as well as stories where the abuse is even more blatant and the defamed party even more innocent, more times than I wish I did.  These men are out there, and saying that this is all men whining about #metoo is missing a critical human element.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":385.0,"score_ratio":1.2765957447}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5matwo","c_root_id_B":"i5maqux","created_at_utc_A":1650550514,"created_at_utc_B":1650550477,"score_A":60,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"Okay, abuse victims aren't perfect.  Celebrity abuse victims even less so.  So what?  Male abuse victims exist, and they're going to see themselves in Depp because his story is very similar to how F\/M abusive dynamics play out in the real world.  Female abusers of men very often pre-empt their victim taking action by claiming abuse first.  Sometimed there's a grain of truth to it - whether the relationship is mutually toxic or he retaliated after a long period of abuse - but sometimes there isn't and the abuse is truly unilateral.  In either case, the abuser claiming to be a victim rather than a perpetrator is false.  Having volunteered for organizations working to prevent domestic violence, I've seen stories like Depp's, as well as stories where the abuse is even more blatant and the defamed party even more innocent, more times than I wish I did.  These men are out there, and saying that this is all men whining about #metoo is missing a critical human element.","human_ref_B":"The fact it \u201chits home\u201d with a lot of men is the fact he is just like any other dude\/bloke that can make the same mistake.   Yes it can and does happen to anyone, especially the ones that proclaim \u201cit\u2019ll never happen to me\u201d.    There are always going to be people that take advantage of a situation to claim some of the empathy that JD is finally getting. But I don\u2019t see that as the majority. I\u2019ve been following this case for a while.     There has always been those type of people social media just gives them a platform to showcase their part instead of just be ignored.    He may have ignored the red flags. But show me someone that has never done that and I\u2019ll show you a liar.  Even if they are lying to themselves.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":37.0,"score_ratio":2.3076923077}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5m9cqo","c_root_id_B":"i5matwo","created_at_utc_A":1650549886,"created_at_utc_B":1650550514,"score_A":13,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":"Aside from some sort of survey of every man who comments on it, what sort of evidence could possibly convince you otherwise?","human_ref_B":"Okay, abuse victims aren't perfect.  Celebrity abuse victims even less so.  So what?  Male abuse victims exist, and they're going to see themselves in Depp because his story is very similar to how F\/M abusive dynamics play out in the real world.  Female abusers of men very often pre-empt their victim taking action by claiming abuse first.  Sometimed there's a grain of truth to it - whether the relationship is mutually toxic or he retaliated after a long period of abuse - but sometimes there isn't and the abuse is truly unilateral.  In either case, the abuser claiming to be a victim rather than a perpetrator is false.  Having volunteered for organizations working to prevent domestic violence, I've seen stories like Depp's, as well as stories where the abuse is even more blatant and the defamed party even more innocent, more times than I wish I did.  These men are out there, and saying that this is all men whining about #metoo is missing a critical human element.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":628.0,"score_ratio":4.6153846154}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5matwo","c_root_id_B":"i5mas51","created_at_utc_A":1650550514,"created_at_utc_B":1650550493,"score_A":60,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Okay, abuse victims aren't perfect.  Celebrity abuse victims even less so.  So what?  Male abuse victims exist, and they're going to see themselves in Depp because his story is very similar to how F\/M abusive dynamics play out in the real world.  Female abusers of men very often pre-empt their victim taking action by claiming abuse first.  Sometimed there's a grain of truth to it - whether the relationship is mutually toxic or he retaliated after a long period of abuse - but sometimes there isn't and the abuse is truly unilateral.  In either case, the abuser claiming to be a victim rather than a perpetrator is false.  Having volunteered for organizations working to prevent domestic violence, I've seen stories like Depp's, as well as stories where the abuse is even more blatant and the defamed party even more innocent, more times than I wish I did.  These men are out there, and saying that this is all men whining about #metoo is missing a critical human element.","human_ref_B":"So only perfect moral martyrs get to have sympathy? Is that the metric you want to be applied to everyone? Do you apply that metric to women?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21.0,"score_ratio":6.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5m9cqo","c_root_id_B":"i5m9xay","created_at_utc_A":1650549886,"created_at_utc_B":1650550129,"score_A":13,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"Aside from some sort of survey of every man who comments on it, what sort of evidence could possibly convince you otherwise?","human_ref_B":"It's not often domestic abuse against men gets any serious consideration in the media. Depp may not be the poster boy they'd want. But if it takes a wacko celebrity to get the news to talk about the issue, you take what you can get.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":243.0,"score_ratio":3.6153846154}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mi18g","c_root_id_B":"i5mbvai","created_at_utc_A":1650553451,"created_at_utc_B":1650550942,"score_A":35,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"I think the reason men feel that way could be because cases like these hardly get mainstream media attention. And while both Depp and Heard seem like absolute batshit lunatics, it does help highlight the fact that guys get abused too. (I say this as a woman)  I have known a person like Heard who made life hell for a guy, but his immediate friend group simply laughed at him because ' she is tiny how can she hurt you ' and the mockery he faced was relentless. So imo this case getting attention atleast serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that even a rich, powerful actor of Depp's status CAN be a victim of abuse. While the men you mention might not care about the facts of the case, a lot of the time the opposite would be true as well. But it doesn't take away from the fact that awareness gets generated, which is beneficial to victims in the long run.","human_ref_B":"The point is that male domestic abuse victims *do* exist, but are often completely ignored and not believed.  Sure, Depp is far from perfect, but its finally bringing attention to the fact that men very much *can* be victims of abuse, just like women.  That\u2019s why so many men care. They are not looking to be victims, rather acknowledge the fact that men can be, and don\u2019t ever get any support.  It\u2019s also pointing out the insane double standard, that Amber Heard is an abuser but still gets work.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2509.0,"score_ratio":1.1290322581}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5maqux","c_root_id_B":"i5mi18g","created_at_utc_A":1650550477,"created_at_utc_B":1650553451,"score_A":26,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"The fact it \u201chits home\u201d with a lot of men is the fact he is just like any other dude\/bloke that can make the same mistake.   Yes it can and does happen to anyone, especially the ones that proclaim \u201cit\u2019ll never happen to me\u201d.    There are always going to be people that take advantage of a situation to claim some of the empathy that JD is finally getting. But I don\u2019t see that as the majority. I\u2019ve been following this case for a while.     There has always been those type of people social media just gives them a platform to showcase their part instead of just be ignored.    He may have ignored the red flags. But show me someone that has never done that and I\u2019ll show you a liar.  Even if they are lying to themselves.","human_ref_B":"I think the reason men feel that way could be because cases like these hardly get mainstream media attention. And while both Depp and Heard seem like absolute batshit lunatics, it does help highlight the fact that guys get abused too. (I say this as a woman)  I have known a person like Heard who made life hell for a guy, but his immediate friend group simply laughed at him because ' she is tiny how can she hurt you ' and the mockery he faced was relentless. So imo this case getting attention atleast serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that even a rich, powerful actor of Depp's status CAN be a victim of abuse. While the men you mention might not care about the facts of the case, a lot of the time the opposite would be true as well. But it doesn't take away from the fact that awareness gets generated, which is beneficial to victims in the long run.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2974.0,"score_ratio":1.3461538462}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5md59t","c_root_id_B":"i5mi18g","created_at_utc_A":1650551475,"created_at_utc_B":1650553451,"score_A":19,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":">He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Just curious, any evidence of him being crazy before his relationship with her?  Edit: just to expand on that, if you have none. You are basically blaming abuse victim for... being an abuse victim.   A woman drinks and doesn't care about her child's well-being while being pummeled every night by her husband, well, according to you she is just as fcked up as him. So... you either have pretty good sources on how Johnny was in his previous relationships or you just have no idea what abuse is...","human_ref_B":"I think the reason men feel that way could be because cases like these hardly get mainstream media attention. And while both Depp and Heard seem like absolute batshit lunatics, it does help highlight the fact that guys get abused too. (I say this as a woman)  I have known a person like Heard who made life hell for a guy, but his immediate friend group simply laughed at him because ' she is tiny how can she hurt you ' and the mockery he faced was relentless. So imo this case getting attention atleast serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that even a rich, powerful actor of Depp's status CAN be a victim of abuse. While the men you mention might not care about the facts of the case, a lot of the time the opposite would be true as well. But it doesn't take away from the fact that awareness gets generated, which is beneficial to victims in the long run.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1976.0,"score_ratio":1.8421052632}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mi18g","c_root_id_B":"i5m9cqo","created_at_utc_A":1650553451,"created_at_utc_B":1650549886,"score_A":35,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I think the reason men feel that way could be because cases like these hardly get mainstream media attention. And while both Depp and Heard seem like absolute batshit lunatics, it does help highlight the fact that guys get abused too. (I say this as a woman)  I have known a person like Heard who made life hell for a guy, but his immediate friend group simply laughed at him because ' she is tiny how can she hurt you ' and the mockery he faced was relentless. So imo this case getting attention atleast serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that even a rich, powerful actor of Depp's status CAN be a victim of abuse. While the men you mention might not care about the facts of the case, a lot of the time the opposite would be true as well. But it doesn't take away from the fact that awareness gets generated, which is beneficial to victims in the long run.","human_ref_B":"Aside from some sort of survey of every man who comments on it, what sort of evidence could possibly convince you otherwise?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3565.0,"score_ratio":2.6923076923}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mcah8","c_root_id_B":"i5mi18g","created_at_utc_A":1650551117,"created_at_utc_B":1650553451,"score_A":12,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m not the most eloquent at speaking on this, but I\u2019ve been in an extremely abusive relationship.  The toxic side of my own masculinity made me incapable of realizing that her aggressive and abusive actions were not the product of my failings to keep her safe from her negative thoughts and emotions.    I think it\u2019s important for men to realize that they can be abused by partners.  It\u2019s not our responsibility to \u2018just sit down and shut up\u2019 while other people have a turn to air their grievances.  All aggrieved people should be able to have their say.  In Depp\u2019s case, he is simply trying to win back his life and career from someone he is accusing of lying about how he treated her.  If she did lie, Depp deserves an equally public rehabilitation that he received from her very public accusations that derailed his life and career.","human_ref_B":"I think the reason men feel that way could be because cases like these hardly get mainstream media attention. And while both Depp and Heard seem like absolute batshit lunatics, it does help highlight the fact that guys get abused too. (I say this as a woman)  I have known a person like Heard who made life hell for a guy, but his immediate friend group simply laughed at him because ' she is tiny how can she hurt you ' and the mockery he faced was relentless. So imo this case getting attention atleast serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that even a rich, powerful actor of Depp's status CAN be a victim of abuse. While the men you mention might not care about the facts of the case, a lot of the time the opposite would be true as well. But it doesn't take away from the fact that awareness gets generated, which is beneficial to victims in the long run.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2334.0,"score_ratio":2.9166666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mas51","c_root_id_B":"i5mi18g","created_at_utc_A":1650550493,"created_at_utc_B":1650553451,"score_A":9,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"So only perfect moral martyrs get to have sympathy? Is that the metric you want to be applied to everyone? Do you apply that metric to women?","human_ref_B":"I think the reason men feel that way could be because cases like these hardly get mainstream media attention. And while both Depp and Heard seem like absolute batshit lunatics, it does help highlight the fact that guys get abused too. (I say this as a woman)  I have known a person like Heard who made life hell for a guy, but his immediate friend group simply laughed at him because ' she is tiny how can she hurt you ' and the mockery he faced was relentless. So imo this case getting attention atleast serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that even a rich, powerful actor of Depp's status CAN be a victim of abuse. While the men you mention might not care about the facts of the case, a lot of the time the opposite would be true as well. But it doesn't take away from the fact that awareness gets generated, which is beneficial to victims in the long run.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2958.0,"score_ratio":3.8888888889}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mi18g","c_root_id_B":"i5mgia0","created_at_utc_A":1650553451,"created_at_utc_B":1650552834,"score_A":35,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I think the reason men feel that way could be because cases like these hardly get mainstream media attention. And while both Depp and Heard seem like absolute batshit lunatics, it does help highlight the fact that guys get abused too. (I say this as a woman)  I have known a person like Heard who made life hell for a guy, but his immediate friend group simply laughed at him because ' she is tiny how can she hurt you ' and the mockery he faced was relentless. So imo this case getting attention atleast serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that even a rich, powerful actor of Depp's status CAN be a victim of abuse. While the men you mention might not care about the facts of the case, a lot of the time the opposite would be true as well. But it doesn't take away from the fact that awareness gets generated, which is beneficial to victims in the long run.","human_ref_B":"The point isn't to diminish women's struggles, just to highlight some of men's struggles that might go under the radar. The poor response to male abuse victims is a well known thing, and even Depp got backlash coming out as a victim, losing acting roles while the abuser kept her roles and career success. It's not to say that women's struggles don't count or don't exist, everyone has struggles, and this event highlights one of men's.  Him being a prominent actor gets more attention on the issue over some random person who might be going through the same thing, and the whole thing kinda flips stereotypes around.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":617.0,"score_ratio":2.9166666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mi18g","c_root_id_B":"i5mdp6q","created_at_utc_A":1650553451,"created_at_utc_B":1650551702,"score_A":35,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think the reason men feel that way could be because cases like these hardly get mainstream media attention. And while both Depp and Heard seem like absolute batshit lunatics, it does help highlight the fact that guys get abused too. (I say this as a woman)  I have known a person like Heard who made life hell for a guy, but his immediate friend group simply laughed at him because ' she is tiny how can she hurt you ' and the mockery he faced was relentless. So imo this case getting attention atleast serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that even a rich, powerful actor of Depp's status CAN be a victim of abuse. While the men you mention might not care about the facts of the case, a lot of the time the opposite would be true as well. But it doesn't take away from the fact that awareness gets generated, which is beneficial to victims in the long run.","human_ref_B":"I disagree. Not that many men aren't using this as a way to dismiss issues women face because they are. But this affirms a world view some men have, especially online. It's a clear case of the man being victimized, the media portrayal that he is wrong, and there being vindication that he was partly right.   I also don't think your argument where you characterize Depp as partly responsible and a cause of some of the issues to be a good one. There are A LOT of instances of DA or other problems where the victim is not completely innocent.   This happens often when we view police murder of black people and the go to rejection of them being the victim is they were no angel. See Michael Brown's death for example. We even extend that too the Zimmerman case where Trayvon Martin was portrayed as a threat and the media showed pics of him to make him seem older or a potential threat.  You don't need Depp to be a saint to look at what is wrong with the case and to see his side. What you should be arguing is that Depp's situation is not the norm or rather the way we look at DA should not be a clear gender thing where existing feelings that are negative towards women influence it. That while women are the vast majority of DA victims, allowing room for men to come forward who are victims and believing them is important.   Normalizing a culture where any victim can come forward and be believed is important.   Depp's situation can be bad and a sign of when certain cases fall through the cracks or are presented poorly, but you can argue it is not the norm of DA cases.   The problem I see is that there are larger societal trends that lead men to not being viewed as possible victims of abuse in heteronormative relationships. Many men who would view Depp as the victim, may reject that those societal trends exist. Toxic masculinity being one of them. Depp's case can be used as an example of how we need to stop viewing men in a certain way that ends up being harmful to all genders.  Another aspect of this is a lot of your exposure to who is upset is probably people online who already have been radicalized to think a certain way.  EDIT: I also think some men see  \"cancel culture\" or claim Johnny Depp is unable to work. However, he was dropped from what the 3rd installment of a bombing franchise? He still acted from 2016 - present. The 2nd Fantastic Beasts film came out in 2018. He's currently filming an animated series and is in pre-pro for other films.   But the perception of him being barred from working is out there and that is drummed up again by men who are hyper online. It's hard to discuss Depp's career because he cashed in so much in the 2000s up to the mid 2010s that now he can pick and choose his work. It's clear to see the narrative that forms, but that shouldn't dismiss the actual parts of this case and overall takeaway one should have from the problematic nature of how it all went down.   Since 2016 he's regularly worked:  2016: 3 projects  2017: 5 projects  2018: 6 projects  2019: 1 project  2020: 1 project  2021-22: 3 projects  https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/name\/nm0000136\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1749.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mi18g","c_root_id_B":"i5mdyr2","created_at_utc_A":1650553451,"created_at_utc_B":1650551815,"score_A":35,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think the reason men feel that way could be because cases like these hardly get mainstream media attention. And while both Depp and Heard seem like absolute batshit lunatics, it does help highlight the fact that guys get abused too. (I say this as a woman)  I have known a person like Heard who made life hell for a guy, but his immediate friend group simply laughed at him because ' she is tiny how can she hurt you ' and the mockery he faced was relentless. So imo this case getting attention atleast serves the purpose of highlighting the fact that even a rich, powerful actor of Depp's status CAN be a victim of abuse. While the men you mention might not care about the facts of the case, a lot of the time the opposite would be true as well. But it doesn't take away from the fact that awareness gets generated, which is beneficial to victims in the long run.","human_ref_B":"I think the part of this you're missing is the \"cancel culture\" piece. It's not just that Depp is an example of an abused man; it's that he suffered significant consequences for what may have been a lie.  Personally, I don't actually believe in any popular notion of cancel culture, but I do think framing this entirely as a story about domestic abuse and not at least in part a story about the idea of \"cancel culture\" is incorrect.  In some ways, I think it's worse than what you're saying. I would argue the idea behind \"cancel culture\" is that our social systems are failing women, and the court of public opinion is their last resort. The idea behind the people so angry about this case is that they can take that tool from women too if they can prove that a high-profile woman lied.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1636.0,"score_ratio":11.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mbvai","c_root_id_B":"i5maqux","created_at_utc_A":1650550942,"created_at_utc_B":1650550477,"score_A":31,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"The point is that male domestic abuse victims *do* exist, but are often completely ignored and not believed.  Sure, Depp is far from perfect, but its finally bringing attention to the fact that men very much *can* be victims of abuse, just like women.  That\u2019s why so many men care. They are not looking to be victims, rather acknowledge the fact that men can be, and don\u2019t ever get any support.  It\u2019s also pointing out the insane double standard, that Amber Heard is an abuser but still gets work.","human_ref_B":"The fact it \u201chits home\u201d with a lot of men is the fact he is just like any other dude\/bloke that can make the same mistake.   Yes it can and does happen to anyone, especially the ones that proclaim \u201cit\u2019ll never happen to me\u201d.    There are always going to be people that take advantage of a situation to claim some of the empathy that JD is finally getting. But I don\u2019t see that as the majority. I\u2019ve been following this case for a while.     There has always been those type of people social media just gives them a platform to showcase their part instead of just be ignored.    He may have ignored the red flags. But show me someone that has never done that and I\u2019ll show you a liar.  Even if they are lying to themselves.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":465.0,"score_ratio":1.1923076923}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mbvai","c_root_id_B":"i5m9cqo","created_at_utc_A":1650550942,"created_at_utc_B":1650549886,"score_A":31,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"The point is that male domestic abuse victims *do* exist, but are often completely ignored and not believed.  Sure, Depp is far from perfect, but its finally bringing attention to the fact that men very much *can* be victims of abuse, just like women.  That\u2019s why so many men care. They are not looking to be victims, rather acknowledge the fact that men can be, and don\u2019t ever get any support.  It\u2019s also pointing out the insane double standard, that Amber Heard is an abuser but still gets work.","human_ref_B":"Aside from some sort of survey of every man who comments on it, what sort of evidence could possibly convince you otherwise?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1056.0,"score_ratio":2.3846153846}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mas51","c_root_id_B":"i5mbvai","created_at_utc_A":1650550493,"created_at_utc_B":1650550942,"score_A":9,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"So only perfect moral martyrs get to have sympathy? Is that the metric you want to be applied to everyone? Do you apply that metric to women?","human_ref_B":"The point is that male domestic abuse victims *do* exist, but are often completely ignored and not believed.  Sure, Depp is far from perfect, but its finally bringing attention to the fact that men very much *can* be victims of abuse, just like women.  That\u2019s why so many men care. They are not looking to be victims, rather acknowledge the fact that men can be, and don\u2019t ever get any support.  It\u2019s also pointing out the insane double standard, that Amber Heard is an abuser but still gets work.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":449.0,"score_ratio":3.4444444444}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5m9cqo","c_root_id_B":"i5maqux","created_at_utc_A":1650549886,"created_at_utc_B":1650550477,"score_A":13,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"Aside from some sort of survey of every man who comments on it, what sort of evidence could possibly convince you otherwise?","human_ref_B":"The fact it \u201chits home\u201d with a lot of men is the fact he is just like any other dude\/bloke that can make the same mistake.   Yes it can and does happen to anyone, especially the ones that proclaim \u201cit\u2019ll never happen to me\u201d.    There are always going to be people that take advantage of a situation to claim some of the empathy that JD is finally getting. But I don\u2019t see that as the majority. I\u2019ve been following this case for a while.     There has always been those type of people social media just gives them a platform to showcase their part instead of just be ignored.    He may have ignored the red flags. But show me someone that has never done that and I\u2019ll show you a liar.  Even if they are lying to themselves.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":591.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mj3dr","c_root_id_B":"i5md59t","created_at_utc_A":1650553875,"created_at_utc_B":1650551475,"score_A":26,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"I think you\u2019re arguing against a straw man.  The bigger takeaway from Depp\/Heard was that the woman\u2019s accusations were initially assumed to be 100% true and Depp must be 100% wrong and it took a lot to uncover the reality (while there were attempts to \u2018cancel\u2019 Depp in the meantime).  What men tend to point out is the assumption of total guilt and total innocence in the court of public opinion based on gender is *really dangerous* and in opposition to like basic principals of Justice.  Obviously Depp isn\u2019t a saint, and it\u2019s rather highly probable that they\u2019re both kinda fucked up - and it\u2019s mostly right for us to kinda tune it out and let it run its course in court before drawing conclusions beyond that.","human_ref_B":">He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Just curious, any evidence of him being crazy before his relationship with her?  Edit: just to expand on that, if you have none. You are basically blaming abuse victim for... being an abuse victim.   A woman drinks and doesn't care about her child's well-being while being pummeled every night by her husband, well, according to you she is just as fcked up as him. So... you either have pretty good sources on how Johnny was in his previous relationships or you just have no idea what abuse is...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2400.0,"score_ratio":1.3684210526}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5m9cqo","c_root_id_B":"i5mj3dr","created_at_utc_A":1650549886,"created_at_utc_B":1650553875,"score_A":13,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"Aside from some sort of survey of every man who comments on it, what sort of evidence could possibly convince you otherwise?","human_ref_B":"I think you\u2019re arguing against a straw man.  The bigger takeaway from Depp\/Heard was that the woman\u2019s accusations were initially assumed to be 100% true and Depp must be 100% wrong and it took a lot to uncover the reality (while there were attempts to \u2018cancel\u2019 Depp in the meantime).  What men tend to point out is the assumption of total guilt and total innocence in the court of public opinion based on gender is *really dangerous* and in opposition to like basic principals of Justice.  Obviously Depp isn\u2019t a saint, and it\u2019s rather highly probable that they\u2019re both kinda fucked up - and it\u2019s mostly right for us to kinda tune it out and let it run its course in court before drawing conclusions beyond that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3989.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mcah8","c_root_id_B":"i5mj3dr","created_at_utc_A":1650551117,"created_at_utc_B":1650553875,"score_A":12,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m not the most eloquent at speaking on this, but I\u2019ve been in an extremely abusive relationship.  The toxic side of my own masculinity made me incapable of realizing that her aggressive and abusive actions were not the product of my failings to keep her safe from her negative thoughts and emotions.    I think it\u2019s important for men to realize that they can be abused by partners.  It\u2019s not our responsibility to \u2018just sit down and shut up\u2019 while other people have a turn to air their grievances.  All aggrieved people should be able to have their say.  In Depp\u2019s case, he is simply trying to win back his life and career from someone he is accusing of lying about how he treated her.  If she did lie, Depp deserves an equally public rehabilitation that he received from her very public accusations that derailed his life and career.","human_ref_B":"I think you\u2019re arguing against a straw man.  The bigger takeaway from Depp\/Heard was that the woman\u2019s accusations were initially assumed to be 100% true and Depp must be 100% wrong and it took a lot to uncover the reality (while there were attempts to \u2018cancel\u2019 Depp in the meantime).  What men tend to point out is the assumption of total guilt and total innocence in the court of public opinion based on gender is *really dangerous* and in opposition to like basic principals of Justice.  Obviously Depp isn\u2019t a saint, and it\u2019s rather highly probable that they\u2019re both kinda fucked up - and it\u2019s mostly right for us to kinda tune it out and let it run its course in court before drawing conclusions beyond that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2758.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mj3dr","c_root_id_B":"i5mas51","created_at_utc_A":1650553875,"created_at_utc_B":1650550493,"score_A":26,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I think you\u2019re arguing against a straw man.  The bigger takeaway from Depp\/Heard was that the woman\u2019s accusations were initially assumed to be 100% true and Depp must be 100% wrong and it took a lot to uncover the reality (while there were attempts to \u2018cancel\u2019 Depp in the meantime).  What men tend to point out is the assumption of total guilt and total innocence in the court of public opinion based on gender is *really dangerous* and in opposition to like basic principals of Justice.  Obviously Depp isn\u2019t a saint, and it\u2019s rather highly probable that they\u2019re both kinda fucked up - and it\u2019s mostly right for us to kinda tune it out and let it run its course in court before drawing conclusions beyond that.","human_ref_B":"So only perfect moral martyrs get to have sympathy? Is that the metric you want to be applied to everyone? Do you apply that metric to women?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3382.0,"score_ratio":2.8888888889}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mj3dr","c_root_id_B":"i5mgia0","created_at_utc_A":1650553875,"created_at_utc_B":1650552834,"score_A":26,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I think you\u2019re arguing against a straw man.  The bigger takeaway from Depp\/Heard was that the woman\u2019s accusations were initially assumed to be 100% true and Depp must be 100% wrong and it took a lot to uncover the reality (while there were attempts to \u2018cancel\u2019 Depp in the meantime).  What men tend to point out is the assumption of total guilt and total innocence in the court of public opinion based on gender is *really dangerous* and in opposition to like basic principals of Justice.  Obviously Depp isn\u2019t a saint, and it\u2019s rather highly probable that they\u2019re both kinda fucked up - and it\u2019s mostly right for us to kinda tune it out and let it run its course in court before drawing conclusions beyond that.","human_ref_B":"The point isn't to diminish women's struggles, just to highlight some of men's struggles that might go under the radar. The poor response to male abuse victims is a well known thing, and even Depp got backlash coming out as a victim, losing acting roles while the abuser kept her roles and career success. It's not to say that women's struggles don't count or don't exist, everyone has struggles, and this event highlights one of men's.  Him being a prominent actor gets more attention on the issue over some random person who might be going through the same thing, and the whole thing kinda flips stereotypes around.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1041.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mi5ji","c_root_id_B":"i5mj3dr","created_at_utc_A":1650553498,"created_at_utc_B":1650553875,"score_A":9,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"Is this a victim blaming post?","human_ref_B":"I think you\u2019re arguing against a straw man.  The bigger takeaway from Depp\/Heard was that the woman\u2019s accusations were initially assumed to be 100% true and Depp must be 100% wrong and it took a lot to uncover the reality (while there were attempts to \u2018cancel\u2019 Depp in the meantime).  What men tend to point out is the assumption of total guilt and total innocence in the court of public opinion based on gender is *really dangerous* and in opposition to like basic principals of Justice.  Obviously Depp isn\u2019t a saint, and it\u2019s rather highly probable that they\u2019re both kinda fucked up - and it\u2019s mostly right for us to kinda tune it out and let it run its course in court before drawing conclusions beyond that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":377.0,"score_ratio":2.8888888889}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mj3dr","c_root_id_B":"i5mdp6q","created_at_utc_A":1650553875,"created_at_utc_B":1650551702,"score_A":26,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think you\u2019re arguing against a straw man.  The bigger takeaway from Depp\/Heard was that the woman\u2019s accusations were initially assumed to be 100% true and Depp must be 100% wrong and it took a lot to uncover the reality (while there were attempts to \u2018cancel\u2019 Depp in the meantime).  What men tend to point out is the assumption of total guilt and total innocence in the court of public opinion based on gender is *really dangerous* and in opposition to like basic principals of Justice.  Obviously Depp isn\u2019t a saint, and it\u2019s rather highly probable that they\u2019re both kinda fucked up - and it\u2019s mostly right for us to kinda tune it out and let it run its course in court before drawing conclusions beyond that.","human_ref_B":"I disagree. Not that many men aren't using this as a way to dismiss issues women face because they are. But this affirms a world view some men have, especially online. It's a clear case of the man being victimized, the media portrayal that he is wrong, and there being vindication that he was partly right.   I also don't think your argument where you characterize Depp as partly responsible and a cause of some of the issues to be a good one. There are A LOT of instances of DA or other problems where the victim is not completely innocent.   This happens often when we view police murder of black people and the go to rejection of them being the victim is they were no angel. See Michael Brown's death for example. We even extend that too the Zimmerman case where Trayvon Martin was portrayed as a threat and the media showed pics of him to make him seem older or a potential threat.  You don't need Depp to be a saint to look at what is wrong with the case and to see his side. What you should be arguing is that Depp's situation is not the norm or rather the way we look at DA should not be a clear gender thing where existing feelings that are negative towards women influence it. That while women are the vast majority of DA victims, allowing room for men to come forward who are victims and believing them is important.   Normalizing a culture where any victim can come forward and be believed is important.   Depp's situation can be bad and a sign of when certain cases fall through the cracks or are presented poorly, but you can argue it is not the norm of DA cases.   The problem I see is that there are larger societal trends that lead men to not being viewed as possible victims of abuse in heteronormative relationships. Many men who would view Depp as the victim, may reject that those societal trends exist. Toxic masculinity being one of them. Depp's case can be used as an example of how we need to stop viewing men in a certain way that ends up being harmful to all genders.  Another aspect of this is a lot of your exposure to who is upset is probably people online who already have been radicalized to think a certain way.  EDIT: I also think some men see  \"cancel culture\" or claim Johnny Depp is unable to work. However, he was dropped from what the 3rd installment of a bombing franchise? He still acted from 2016 - present. The 2nd Fantastic Beasts film came out in 2018. He's currently filming an animated series and is in pre-pro for other films.   But the perception of him being barred from working is out there and that is drummed up again by men who are hyper online. It's hard to discuss Depp's career because he cashed in so much in the 2000s up to the mid 2010s that now he can pick and choose his work. It's clear to see the narrative that forms, but that shouldn't dismiss the actual parts of this case and overall takeaway one should have from the problematic nature of how it all went down.   Since 2016 he's regularly worked:  2016: 3 projects  2017: 5 projects  2018: 6 projects  2019: 1 project  2020: 1 project  2021-22: 3 projects  https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/name\/nm0000136\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2173.0,"score_ratio":3.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5miayt","c_root_id_B":"i5mj3dr","created_at_utc_A":1650553559,"created_at_utc_B":1650553875,"score_A":5,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"I'll argue, as a man, that we are mainly happy because it shows women can be same monsters as we can. It is about equality - nobody is perfect, but when famous woman says her ex husband abused her and it costs him plenty of money and jobs offers and actually she abused him, we want to see justice and we are happy it looks like there will be justice.  Let's be honest, they probably both did drugs and had bad states of mind etc, but only one of those physically abused the other. One. And it wasn't a man. And we men are quite tired how we basically can't be around our younger relatives in public, how every claim from women about rape or abuse etc is generally valid instantly while society laugh at us when we are abused or raped.  It's not about dismissing women's claims and issues they face, it's about same investigation being applied for both men's and women's claims and their health and safety. Equality.","human_ref_B":"I think you\u2019re arguing against a straw man.  The bigger takeaway from Depp\/Heard was that the woman\u2019s accusations were initially assumed to be 100% true and Depp must be 100% wrong and it took a lot to uncover the reality (while there were attempts to \u2018cancel\u2019 Depp in the meantime).  What men tend to point out is the assumption of total guilt and total innocence in the court of public opinion based on gender is *really dangerous* and in opposition to like basic principals of Justice.  Obviously Depp isn\u2019t a saint, and it\u2019s rather highly probable that they\u2019re both kinda fucked up - and it\u2019s mostly right for us to kinda tune it out and let it run its course in court before drawing conclusions beyond that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":316.0,"score_ratio":5.2}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mdyr2","c_root_id_B":"i5mj3dr","created_at_utc_A":1650551815,"created_at_utc_B":1650553875,"score_A":3,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"I think the part of this you're missing is the \"cancel culture\" piece. It's not just that Depp is an example of an abused man; it's that he suffered significant consequences for what may have been a lie.  Personally, I don't actually believe in any popular notion of cancel culture, but I do think framing this entirely as a story about domestic abuse and not at least in part a story about the idea of \"cancel culture\" is incorrect.  In some ways, I think it's worse than what you're saying. I would argue the idea behind \"cancel culture\" is that our social systems are failing women, and the court of public opinion is their last resort. The idea behind the people so angry about this case is that they can take that tool from women too if they can prove that a high-profile woman lied.","human_ref_B":"I think you\u2019re arguing against a straw man.  The bigger takeaway from Depp\/Heard was that the woman\u2019s accusations were initially assumed to be 100% true and Depp must be 100% wrong and it took a lot to uncover the reality (while there were attempts to \u2018cancel\u2019 Depp in the meantime).  What men tend to point out is the assumption of total guilt and total innocence in the court of public opinion based on gender is *really dangerous* and in opposition to like basic principals of Justice.  Obviously Depp isn\u2019t a saint, and it\u2019s rather highly probable that they\u2019re both kinda fucked up - and it\u2019s mostly right for us to kinda tune it out and let it run its course in court before drawing conclusions beyond that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2060.0,"score_ratio":8.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5m9cqo","c_root_id_B":"i5md59t","created_at_utc_A":1650549886,"created_at_utc_B":1650551475,"score_A":13,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Aside from some sort of survey of every man who comments on it, what sort of evidence could possibly convince you otherwise?","human_ref_B":">He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Just curious, any evidence of him being crazy before his relationship with her?  Edit: just to expand on that, if you have none. You are basically blaming abuse victim for... being an abuse victim.   A woman drinks and doesn't care about her child's well-being while being pummeled every night by her husband, well, according to you she is just as fcked up as him. So... you either have pretty good sources on how Johnny was in his previous relationships or you just have no idea what abuse is...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1589.0,"score_ratio":1.4615384615}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mcah8","c_root_id_B":"i5md59t","created_at_utc_A":1650551117,"created_at_utc_B":1650551475,"score_A":12,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m not the most eloquent at speaking on this, but I\u2019ve been in an extremely abusive relationship.  The toxic side of my own masculinity made me incapable of realizing that her aggressive and abusive actions were not the product of my failings to keep her safe from her negative thoughts and emotions.    I think it\u2019s important for men to realize that they can be abused by partners.  It\u2019s not our responsibility to \u2018just sit down and shut up\u2019 while other people have a turn to air their grievances.  All aggrieved people should be able to have their say.  In Depp\u2019s case, he is simply trying to win back his life and career from someone he is accusing of lying about how he treated her.  If she did lie, Depp deserves an equally public rehabilitation that he received from her very public accusations that derailed his life and career.","human_ref_B":">He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Just curious, any evidence of him being crazy before his relationship with her?  Edit: just to expand on that, if you have none. You are basically blaming abuse victim for... being an abuse victim.   A woman drinks and doesn't care about her child's well-being while being pummeled every night by her husband, well, according to you she is just as fcked up as him. So... you either have pretty good sources on how Johnny was in his previous relationships or you just have no idea what abuse is...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":358.0,"score_ratio":1.5833333333}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mas51","c_root_id_B":"i5md59t","created_at_utc_A":1650550493,"created_at_utc_B":1650551475,"score_A":9,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"So only perfect moral martyrs get to have sympathy? Is that the metric you want to be applied to everyone? Do you apply that metric to women?","human_ref_B":">He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Just curious, any evidence of him being crazy before his relationship with her?  Edit: just to expand on that, if you have none. You are basically blaming abuse victim for... being an abuse victim.   A woman drinks and doesn't care about her child's well-being while being pummeled every night by her husband, well, according to you she is just as fcked up as him. So... you either have pretty good sources on how Johnny was in his previous relationships or you just have no idea what abuse is...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":982.0,"score_ratio":2.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mlvpj","c_root_id_B":"i5m9cqo","created_at_utc_A":1650554985,"created_at_utc_B":1650549886,"score_A":15,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Maybe some of us just don't like people being abused? What makes it more interesting is the huge original backlash against Depp who now appears to be the victim. I'm not sure why proof of a woman abusing a man is so upsetting to you, what narrative does it disrupt? Did you really never realize men can be victimized? I'm not but many are, it's a simple fact, and it's sus you want that fact ignored.  Also Depp has issues so deserves it? Really?","human_ref_B":"Aside from some sort of survey of every man who comments on it, what sort of evidence could possibly convince you otherwise?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5099.0,"score_ratio":1.1538461538}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mlvpj","c_root_id_B":"i5mcah8","created_at_utc_A":1650554985,"created_at_utc_B":1650551117,"score_A":15,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Maybe some of us just don't like people being abused? What makes it more interesting is the huge original backlash against Depp who now appears to be the victim. I'm not sure why proof of a woman abusing a man is so upsetting to you, what narrative does it disrupt? Did you really never realize men can be victimized? I'm not but many are, it's a simple fact, and it's sus you want that fact ignored.  Also Depp has issues so deserves it? Really?","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m not the most eloquent at speaking on this, but I\u2019ve been in an extremely abusive relationship.  The toxic side of my own masculinity made me incapable of realizing that her aggressive and abusive actions were not the product of my failings to keep her safe from her negative thoughts and emotions.    I think it\u2019s important for men to realize that they can be abused by partners.  It\u2019s not our responsibility to \u2018just sit down and shut up\u2019 while other people have a turn to air their grievances.  All aggrieved people should be able to have their say.  In Depp\u2019s case, he is simply trying to win back his life and career from someone he is accusing of lying about how he treated her.  If she did lie, Depp deserves an equally public rehabilitation that he received from her very public accusations that derailed his life and career.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3868.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mlvpj","c_root_id_B":"i5mas51","created_at_utc_A":1650554985,"created_at_utc_B":1650550493,"score_A":15,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Maybe some of us just don't like people being abused? What makes it more interesting is the huge original backlash against Depp who now appears to be the victim. I'm not sure why proof of a woman abusing a man is so upsetting to you, what narrative does it disrupt? Did you really never realize men can be victimized? I'm not but many are, it's a simple fact, and it's sus you want that fact ignored.  Also Depp has issues so deserves it? Really?","human_ref_B":"So only perfect moral martyrs get to have sympathy? Is that the metric you want to be applied to everyone? Do you apply that metric to women?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4492.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mlvpj","c_root_id_B":"i5mgia0","created_at_utc_A":1650554985,"created_at_utc_B":1650552834,"score_A":15,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Maybe some of us just don't like people being abused? What makes it more interesting is the huge original backlash against Depp who now appears to be the victim. I'm not sure why proof of a woman abusing a man is so upsetting to you, what narrative does it disrupt? Did you really never realize men can be victimized? I'm not but many are, it's a simple fact, and it's sus you want that fact ignored.  Also Depp has issues so deserves it? Really?","human_ref_B":"The point isn't to diminish women's struggles, just to highlight some of men's struggles that might go under the radar. The poor response to male abuse victims is a well known thing, and even Depp got backlash coming out as a victim, losing acting roles while the abuser kept her roles and career success. It's not to say that women's struggles don't count or don't exist, everyone has struggles, and this event highlights one of men's.  Him being a prominent actor gets more attention on the issue over some random person who might be going through the same thing, and the whole thing kinda flips stereotypes around.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2151.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mi5ji","c_root_id_B":"i5mlvpj","created_at_utc_A":1650553498,"created_at_utc_B":1650554985,"score_A":9,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Is this a victim blaming post?","human_ref_B":"Maybe some of us just don't like people being abused? What makes it more interesting is the huge original backlash against Depp who now appears to be the victim. I'm not sure why proof of a woman abusing a man is so upsetting to you, what narrative does it disrupt? Did you really never realize men can be victimized? I'm not but many are, it's a simple fact, and it's sus you want that fact ignored.  Also Depp has issues so deserves it? Really?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1487.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mdp6q","c_root_id_B":"i5mlvpj","created_at_utc_A":1650551702,"created_at_utc_B":1650554985,"score_A":7,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I disagree. Not that many men aren't using this as a way to dismiss issues women face because they are. But this affirms a world view some men have, especially online. It's a clear case of the man being victimized, the media portrayal that he is wrong, and there being vindication that he was partly right.   I also don't think your argument where you characterize Depp as partly responsible and a cause of some of the issues to be a good one. There are A LOT of instances of DA or other problems where the victim is not completely innocent.   This happens often when we view police murder of black people and the go to rejection of them being the victim is they were no angel. See Michael Brown's death for example. We even extend that too the Zimmerman case where Trayvon Martin was portrayed as a threat and the media showed pics of him to make him seem older or a potential threat.  You don't need Depp to be a saint to look at what is wrong with the case and to see his side. What you should be arguing is that Depp's situation is not the norm or rather the way we look at DA should not be a clear gender thing where existing feelings that are negative towards women influence it. That while women are the vast majority of DA victims, allowing room for men to come forward who are victims and believing them is important.   Normalizing a culture where any victim can come forward and be believed is important.   Depp's situation can be bad and a sign of when certain cases fall through the cracks or are presented poorly, but you can argue it is not the norm of DA cases.   The problem I see is that there are larger societal trends that lead men to not being viewed as possible victims of abuse in heteronormative relationships. Many men who would view Depp as the victim, may reject that those societal trends exist. Toxic masculinity being one of them. Depp's case can be used as an example of how we need to stop viewing men in a certain way that ends up being harmful to all genders.  Another aspect of this is a lot of your exposure to who is upset is probably people online who already have been radicalized to think a certain way.  EDIT: I also think some men see  \"cancel culture\" or claim Johnny Depp is unable to work. However, he was dropped from what the 3rd installment of a bombing franchise? He still acted from 2016 - present. The 2nd Fantastic Beasts film came out in 2018. He's currently filming an animated series and is in pre-pro for other films.   But the perception of him being barred from working is out there and that is drummed up again by men who are hyper online. It's hard to discuss Depp's career because he cashed in so much in the 2000s up to the mid 2010s that now he can pick and choose his work. It's clear to see the narrative that forms, but that shouldn't dismiss the actual parts of this case and overall takeaway one should have from the problematic nature of how it all went down.   Since 2016 he's regularly worked:  2016: 3 projects  2017: 5 projects  2018: 6 projects  2019: 1 project  2020: 1 project  2021-22: 3 projects  https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/name\/nm0000136\/","human_ref_B":"Maybe some of us just don't like people being abused? What makes it more interesting is the huge original backlash against Depp who now appears to be the victim. I'm not sure why proof of a woman abusing a man is so upsetting to you, what narrative does it disrupt? Did you really never realize men can be victimized? I'm not but many are, it's a simple fact, and it's sus you want that fact ignored.  Also Depp has issues so deserves it? Really?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3283.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mlvpj","c_root_id_B":"i5miayt","created_at_utc_A":1650554985,"created_at_utc_B":1650553559,"score_A":15,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Maybe some of us just don't like people being abused? What makes it more interesting is the huge original backlash against Depp who now appears to be the victim. I'm not sure why proof of a woman abusing a man is so upsetting to you, what narrative does it disrupt? Did you really never realize men can be victimized? I'm not but many are, it's a simple fact, and it's sus you want that fact ignored.  Also Depp has issues so deserves it? Really?","human_ref_B":"I'll argue, as a man, that we are mainly happy because it shows women can be same monsters as we can. It is about equality - nobody is perfect, but when famous woman says her ex husband abused her and it costs him plenty of money and jobs offers and actually she abused him, we want to see justice and we are happy it looks like there will be justice.  Let's be honest, they probably both did drugs and had bad states of mind etc, but only one of those physically abused the other. One. And it wasn't a man. And we men are quite tired how we basically can't be around our younger relatives in public, how every claim from women about rape or abuse etc is generally valid instantly while society laugh at us when we are abused or raped.  It's not about dismissing women's claims and issues they face, it's about same investigation being applied for both men's and women's claims and their health and safety. Equality.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1426.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mdyr2","c_root_id_B":"i5mlvpj","created_at_utc_A":1650551815,"created_at_utc_B":1650554985,"score_A":3,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I think the part of this you're missing is the \"cancel culture\" piece. It's not just that Depp is an example of an abused man; it's that he suffered significant consequences for what may have been a lie.  Personally, I don't actually believe in any popular notion of cancel culture, but I do think framing this entirely as a story about domestic abuse and not at least in part a story about the idea of \"cancel culture\" is incorrect.  In some ways, I think it's worse than what you're saying. I would argue the idea behind \"cancel culture\" is that our social systems are failing women, and the court of public opinion is their last resort. The idea behind the people so angry about this case is that they can take that tool from women too if they can prove that a high-profile woman lied.","human_ref_B":"Maybe some of us just don't like people being abused? What makes it more interesting is the huge original backlash against Depp who now appears to be the victim. I'm not sure why proof of a woman abusing a man is so upsetting to you, what narrative does it disrupt? Did you really never realize men can be victimized? I'm not but many are, it's a simple fact, and it's sus you want that fact ignored.  Also Depp has issues so deserves it? Really?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3170.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mk3jx","c_root_id_B":"i5mlvpj","created_at_utc_A":1650554279,"created_at_utc_B":1650554985,"score_A":2,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"This is purely a hypothetical though. Intent is hypothetical.  I could say that you're writing this post because you're horny for Heard. Or you hate Depp. Or because you're bored and annoyed. None of these are real points because it's a hypothetical.  In any case, I don't think someone needs a foundational support to have an opinion on topical events. I've not been paying much attention to global events, but I still think we need to assist Ukraine.","human_ref_B":"Maybe some of us just don't like people being abused? What makes it more interesting is the huge original backlash against Depp who now appears to be the victim. I'm not sure why proof of a woman abusing a man is so upsetting to you, what narrative does it disrupt? Did you really never realize men can be victimized? I'm not but many are, it's a simple fact, and it's sus you want that fact ignored.  Also Depp has issues so deserves it? Really?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":706.0,"score_ratio":7.5}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mas51","c_root_id_B":"i5mcah8","created_at_utc_A":1650550493,"created_at_utc_B":1650551117,"score_A":9,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"So only perfect moral martyrs get to have sympathy? Is that the metric you want to be applied to everyone? Do you apply that metric to women?","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m not the most eloquent at speaking on this, but I\u2019ve been in an extremely abusive relationship.  The toxic side of my own masculinity made me incapable of realizing that her aggressive and abusive actions were not the product of my failings to keep her safe from her negative thoughts and emotions.    I think it\u2019s important for men to realize that they can be abused by partners.  It\u2019s not our responsibility to \u2018just sit down and shut up\u2019 while other people have a turn to air their grievances.  All aggrieved people should be able to have their say.  In Depp\u2019s case, he is simply trying to win back his life and career from someone he is accusing of lying about how he treated her.  If she did lie, Depp deserves an equally public rehabilitation that he received from her very public accusations that derailed his life and career.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":624.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mgia0","c_root_id_B":"i5mas51","created_at_utc_A":1650552834,"created_at_utc_B":1650550493,"score_A":12,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The point isn't to diminish women's struggles, just to highlight some of men's struggles that might go under the radar. The poor response to male abuse victims is a well known thing, and even Depp got backlash coming out as a victim, losing acting roles while the abuser kept her roles and career success. It's not to say that women's struggles don't count or don't exist, everyone has struggles, and this event highlights one of men's.  Him being a prominent actor gets more attention on the issue over some random person who might be going through the same thing, and the whole thing kinda flips stereotypes around.","human_ref_B":"So only perfect moral martyrs get to have sympathy? Is that the metric you want to be applied to everyone? Do you apply that metric to women?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2341.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mgia0","c_root_id_B":"i5mdp6q","created_at_utc_A":1650552834,"created_at_utc_B":1650551702,"score_A":12,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The point isn't to diminish women's struggles, just to highlight some of men's struggles that might go under the radar. The poor response to male abuse victims is a well known thing, and even Depp got backlash coming out as a victim, losing acting roles while the abuser kept her roles and career success. It's not to say that women's struggles don't count or don't exist, everyone has struggles, and this event highlights one of men's.  Him being a prominent actor gets more attention on the issue over some random person who might be going through the same thing, and the whole thing kinda flips stereotypes around.","human_ref_B":"I disagree. Not that many men aren't using this as a way to dismiss issues women face because they are. But this affirms a world view some men have, especially online. It's a clear case of the man being victimized, the media portrayal that he is wrong, and there being vindication that he was partly right.   I also don't think your argument where you characterize Depp as partly responsible and a cause of some of the issues to be a good one. There are A LOT of instances of DA or other problems where the victim is not completely innocent.   This happens often when we view police murder of black people and the go to rejection of them being the victim is they were no angel. See Michael Brown's death for example. We even extend that too the Zimmerman case where Trayvon Martin was portrayed as a threat and the media showed pics of him to make him seem older or a potential threat.  You don't need Depp to be a saint to look at what is wrong with the case and to see his side. What you should be arguing is that Depp's situation is not the norm or rather the way we look at DA should not be a clear gender thing where existing feelings that are negative towards women influence it. That while women are the vast majority of DA victims, allowing room for men to come forward who are victims and believing them is important.   Normalizing a culture where any victim can come forward and be believed is important.   Depp's situation can be bad and a sign of when certain cases fall through the cracks or are presented poorly, but you can argue it is not the norm of DA cases.   The problem I see is that there are larger societal trends that lead men to not being viewed as possible victims of abuse in heteronormative relationships. Many men who would view Depp as the victim, may reject that those societal trends exist. Toxic masculinity being one of them. Depp's case can be used as an example of how we need to stop viewing men in a certain way that ends up being harmful to all genders.  Another aspect of this is a lot of your exposure to who is upset is probably people online who already have been radicalized to think a certain way.  EDIT: I also think some men see  \"cancel culture\" or claim Johnny Depp is unable to work. However, he was dropped from what the 3rd installment of a bombing franchise? He still acted from 2016 - present. The 2nd Fantastic Beasts film came out in 2018. He's currently filming an animated series and is in pre-pro for other films.   But the perception of him being barred from working is out there and that is drummed up again by men who are hyper online. It's hard to discuss Depp's career because he cashed in so much in the 2000s up to the mid 2010s that now he can pick and choose his work. It's clear to see the narrative that forms, but that shouldn't dismiss the actual parts of this case and overall takeaway one should have from the problematic nature of how it all went down.   Since 2016 he's regularly worked:  2016: 3 projects  2017: 5 projects  2018: 6 projects  2019: 1 project  2020: 1 project  2021-22: 3 projects  https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/name\/nm0000136\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1132.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mdyr2","c_root_id_B":"i5mgia0","created_at_utc_A":1650551815,"created_at_utc_B":1650552834,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I think the part of this you're missing is the \"cancel culture\" piece. It's not just that Depp is an example of an abused man; it's that he suffered significant consequences for what may have been a lie.  Personally, I don't actually believe in any popular notion of cancel culture, but I do think framing this entirely as a story about domestic abuse and not at least in part a story about the idea of \"cancel culture\" is incorrect.  In some ways, I think it's worse than what you're saying. I would argue the idea behind \"cancel culture\" is that our social systems are failing women, and the court of public opinion is their last resort. The idea behind the people so angry about this case is that they can take that tool from women too if they can prove that a high-profile woman lied.","human_ref_B":"The point isn't to diminish women's struggles, just to highlight some of men's struggles that might go under the radar. The poor response to male abuse victims is a well known thing, and even Depp got backlash coming out as a victim, losing acting roles while the abuser kept her roles and career success. It's not to say that women's struggles don't count or don't exist, everyone has struggles, and this event highlights one of men's.  Him being a prominent actor gets more attention on the issue over some random person who might be going through the same thing, and the whole thing kinda flips stereotypes around.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1019.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mmbr5","c_root_id_B":"i5mdp6q","created_at_utc_A":1650555160,"created_at_utc_B":1650551702,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"What leads you to believe that any of these men who are \"up in arms\" are claiming some sort of activist interest in domestic abuse at all?  I'd say that the men that are \"up in arms\" are more interested in activist activity surrounding false accusations leveled by women against men (whether that be for domestic abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment or whatever) and how the mere accusation can cause significant damage to a man.  Johnny Depp seems like a pretty good poster boy for that.","human_ref_B":"I disagree. Not that many men aren't using this as a way to dismiss issues women face because they are. But this affirms a world view some men have, especially online. It's a clear case of the man being victimized, the media portrayal that he is wrong, and there being vindication that he was partly right.   I also don't think your argument where you characterize Depp as partly responsible and a cause of some of the issues to be a good one. There are A LOT of instances of DA or other problems where the victim is not completely innocent.   This happens often when we view police murder of black people and the go to rejection of them being the victim is they were no angel. See Michael Brown's death for example. We even extend that too the Zimmerman case where Trayvon Martin was portrayed as a threat and the media showed pics of him to make him seem older or a potential threat.  You don't need Depp to be a saint to look at what is wrong with the case and to see his side. What you should be arguing is that Depp's situation is not the norm or rather the way we look at DA should not be a clear gender thing where existing feelings that are negative towards women influence it. That while women are the vast majority of DA victims, allowing room for men to come forward who are victims and believing them is important.   Normalizing a culture where any victim can come forward and be believed is important.   Depp's situation can be bad and a sign of when certain cases fall through the cracks or are presented poorly, but you can argue it is not the norm of DA cases.   The problem I see is that there are larger societal trends that lead men to not being viewed as possible victims of abuse in heteronormative relationships. Many men who would view Depp as the victim, may reject that those societal trends exist. Toxic masculinity being one of them. Depp's case can be used as an example of how we need to stop viewing men in a certain way that ends up being harmful to all genders.  Another aspect of this is a lot of your exposure to who is upset is probably people online who already have been radicalized to think a certain way.  EDIT: I also think some men see  \"cancel culture\" or claim Johnny Depp is unable to work. However, he was dropped from what the 3rd installment of a bombing franchise? He still acted from 2016 - present. The 2nd Fantastic Beasts film came out in 2018. He's currently filming an animated series and is in pre-pro for other films.   But the perception of him being barred from working is out there and that is drummed up again by men who are hyper online. It's hard to discuss Depp's career because he cashed in so much in the 2000s up to the mid 2010s that now he can pick and choose his work. It's clear to see the narrative that forms, but that shouldn't dismiss the actual parts of this case and overall takeaway one should have from the problematic nature of how it all went down.   Since 2016 he's regularly worked:  2016: 3 projects  2017: 5 projects  2018: 6 projects  2019: 1 project  2020: 1 project  2021-22: 3 projects  https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/name\/nm0000136\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3458.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5miayt","c_root_id_B":"i5mmbr5","created_at_utc_A":1650553559,"created_at_utc_B":1650555160,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I'll argue, as a man, that we are mainly happy because it shows women can be same monsters as we can. It is about equality - nobody is perfect, but when famous woman says her ex husband abused her and it costs him plenty of money and jobs offers and actually she abused him, we want to see justice and we are happy it looks like there will be justice.  Let's be honest, they probably both did drugs and had bad states of mind etc, but only one of those physically abused the other. One. And it wasn't a man. And we men are quite tired how we basically can't be around our younger relatives in public, how every claim from women about rape or abuse etc is generally valid instantly while society laugh at us when we are abused or raped.  It's not about dismissing women's claims and issues they face, it's about same investigation being applied for both men's and women's claims and their health and safety. Equality.","human_ref_B":"What leads you to believe that any of these men who are \"up in arms\" are claiming some sort of activist interest in domestic abuse at all?  I'd say that the men that are \"up in arms\" are more interested in activist activity surrounding false accusations leveled by women against men (whether that be for domestic abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment or whatever) and how the mere accusation can cause significant damage to a man.  Johnny Depp seems like a pretty good poster boy for that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1601.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mdyr2","c_root_id_B":"i5mmbr5","created_at_utc_A":1650551815,"created_at_utc_B":1650555160,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I think the part of this you're missing is the \"cancel culture\" piece. It's not just that Depp is an example of an abused man; it's that he suffered significant consequences for what may have been a lie.  Personally, I don't actually believe in any popular notion of cancel culture, but I do think framing this entirely as a story about domestic abuse and not at least in part a story about the idea of \"cancel culture\" is incorrect.  In some ways, I think it's worse than what you're saying. I would argue the idea behind \"cancel culture\" is that our social systems are failing women, and the court of public opinion is their last resort. The idea behind the people so angry about this case is that they can take that tool from women too if they can prove that a high-profile woman lied.","human_ref_B":"What leads you to believe that any of these men who are \"up in arms\" are claiming some sort of activist interest in domestic abuse at all?  I'd say that the men that are \"up in arms\" are more interested in activist activity surrounding false accusations leveled by women against men (whether that be for domestic abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment or whatever) and how the mere accusation can cause significant damage to a man.  Johnny Depp seems like a pretty good poster boy for that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3345.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mmbr5","c_root_id_B":"i5mk3jx","created_at_utc_A":1650555160,"created_at_utc_B":1650554279,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What leads you to believe that any of these men who are \"up in arms\" are claiming some sort of activist interest in domestic abuse at all?  I'd say that the men that are \"up in arms\" are more interested in activist activity surrounding false accusations leveled by women against men (whether that be for domestic abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment or whatever) and how the mere accusation can cause significant damage to a man.  Johnny Depp seems like a pretty good poster boy for that.","human_ref_B":"This is purely a hypothetical though. Intent is hypothetical.  I could say that you're writing this post because you're horny for Heard. Or you hate Depp. Or because you're bored and annoyed. None of these are real points because it's a hypothetical.  In any case, I don't think someone needs a foundational support to have an opinion on topical events. I've not been paying much attention to global events, but I still think we need to assist Ukraine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":881.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mu1bd","c_root_id_B":"i5mdp6q","created_at_utc_A":1650558126,"created_at_utc_B":1650551702,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m quite confused, you are quite literally doing the exact same type of railroading you\u2019ve accused men of doing during the me too movement by undermining male victims and their stories, then bringing up womens issues.  How is this any different than when people bring up mens issues, like unfair court sentencing, workplace injury and death, male mental health and suicide\u2026 When there\u2019s an article or event centred around woman\u2019s issues?  Attacking his character doesn\u2019t validate the abuse he suffered. Saying a victim of sexual assault was drinking that night doesn\u2019t absolve the sexual assault.","human_ref_B":"I disagree. Not that many men aren't using this as a way to dismiss issues women face because they are. But this affirms a world view some men have, especially online. It's a clear case of the man being victimized, the media portrayal that he is wrong, and there being vindication that he was partly right.   I also don't think your argument where you characterize Depp as partly responsible and a cause of some of the issues to be a good one. There are A LOT of instances of DA or other problems where the victim is not completely innocent.   This happens often when we view police murder of black people and the go to rejection of them being the victim is they were no angel. See Michael Brown's death for example. We even extend that too the Zimmerman case where Trayvon Martin was portrayed as a threat and the media showed pics of him to make him seem older or a potential threat.  You don't need Depp to be a saint to look at what is wrong with the case and to see his side. What you should be arguing is that Depp's situation is not the norm or rather the way we look at DA should not be a clear gender thing where existing feelings that are negative towards women influence it. That while women are the vast majority of DA victims, allowing room for men to come forward who are victims and believing them is important.   Normalizing a culture where any victim can come forward and be believed is important.   Depp's situation can be bad and a sign of when certain cases fall through the cracks or are presented poorly, but you can argue it is not the norm of DA cases.   The problem I see is that there are larger societal trends that lead men to not being viewed as possible victims of abuse in heteronormative relationships. Many men who would view Depp as the victim, may reject that those societal trends exist. Toxic masculinity being one of them. Depp's case can be used as an example of how we need to stop viewing men in a certain way that ends up being harmful to all genders.  Another aspect of this is a lot of your exposure to who is upset is probably people online who already have been radicalized to think a certain way.  EDIT: I also think some men see  \"cancel culture\" or claim Johnny Depp is unable to work. However, he was dropped from what the 3rd installment of a bombing franchise? He still acted from 2016 - present. The 2nd Fantastic Beasts film came out in 2018. He's currently filming an animated series and is in pre-pro for other films.   But the perception of him being barred from working is out there and that is drummed up again by men who are hyper online. It's hard to discuss Depp's career because he cashed in so much in the 2000s up to the mid 2010s that now he can pick and choose his work. It's clear to see the narrative that forms, but that shouldn't dismiss the actual parts of this case and overall takeaway one should have from the problematic nature of how it all went down.   Since 2016 he's regularly worked:  2016: 3 projects  2017: 5 projects  2018: 6 projects  2019: 1 project  2020: 1 project  2021-22: 3 projects  https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/name\/nm0000136\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6424.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mu1bd","c_root_id_B":"i5miayt","created_at_utc_A":1650558126,"created_at_utc_B":1650553559,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m quite confused, you are quite literally doing the exact same type of railroading you\u2019ve accused men of doing during the me too movement by undermining male victims and their stories, then bringing up womens issues.  How is this any different than when people bring up mens issues, like unfair court sentencing, workplace injury and death, male mental health and suicide\u2026 When there\u2019s an article or event centred around woman\u2019s issues?  Attacking his character doesn\u2019t validate the abuse he suffered. Saying a victim of sexual assault was drinking that night doesn\u2019t absolve the sexual assault.","human_ref_B":"I'll argue, as a man, that we are mainly happy because it shows women can be same monsters as we can. It is about equality - nobody is perfect, but when famous woman says her ex husband abused her and it costs him plenty of money and jobs offers and actually she abused him, we want to see justice and we are happy it looks like there will be justice.  Let's be honest, they probably both did drugs and had bad states of mind etc, but only one of those physically abused the other. One. And it wasn't a man. And we men are quite tired how we basically can't be around our younger relatives in public, how every claim from women about rape or abuse etc is generally valid instantly while society laugh at us when we are abused or raped.  It's not about dismissing women's claims and issues they face, it's about same investigation being applied for both men's and women's claims and their health and safety. Equality.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4567.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mmwkn","c_root_id_B":"i5mu1bd","created_at_utc_A":1650555387,"created_at_utc_B":1650558126,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m just going to challenge you on one single aspect and one alone.  You wrote:  > This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing  How is being a victim of domestic abuse and defamation of persons character being falsely accused of domestic abuse not a moral issue?  There seems to be some real serious issues about unfairness going on to me and you seem to using moral issues more important to you to ignore them.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m quite confused, you are quite literally doing the exact same type of railroading you\u2019ve accused men of doing during the me too movement by undermining male victims and their stories, then bringing up womens issues.  How is this any different than when people bring up mens issues, like unfair court sentencing, workplace injury and death, male mental health and suicide\u2026 When there\u2019s an article or event centred around woman\u2019s issues?  Attacking his character doesn\u2019t validate the abuse he suffered. Saying a victim of sexual assault was drinking that night doesn\u2019t absolve the sexual assault.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2739.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mu1bd","c_root_id_B":"i5mdyr2","created_at_utc_A":1650558126,"created_at_utc_B":1650551815,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m quite confused, you are quite literally doing the exact same type of railroading you\u2019ve accused men of doing during the me too movement by undermining male victims and their stories, then bringing up womens issues.  How is this any different than when people bring up mens issues, like unfair court sentencing, workplace injury and death, male mental health and suicide\u2026 When there\u2019s an article or event centred around woman\u2019s issues?  Attacking his character doesn\u2019t validate the abuse he suffered. Saying a victim of sexual assault was drinking that night doesn\u2019t absolve the sexual assault.","human_ref_B":"I think the part of this you're missing is the \"cancel culture\" piece. It's not just that Depp is an example of an abused man; it's that he suffered significant consequences for what may have been a lie.  Personally, I don't actually believe in any popular notion of cancel culture, but I do think framing this entirely as a story about domestic abuse and not at least in part a story about the idea of \"cancel culture\" is incorrect.  In some ways, I think it's worse than what you're saying. I would argue the idea behind \"cancel culture\" is that our social systems are failing women, and the court of public opinion is their last resort. The idea behind the people so angry about this case is that they can take that tool from women too if they can prove that a high-profile woman lied.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6311.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mu1bd","c_root_id_B":"i5mk3jx","created_at_utc_A":1650558126,"created_at_utc_B":1650554279,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m quite confused, you are quite literally doing the exact same type of railroading you\u2019ve accused men of doing during the me too movement by undermining male victims and their stories, then bringing up womens issues.  How is this any different than when people bring up mens issues, like unfair court sentencing, workplace injury and death, male mental health and suicide\u2026 When there\u2019s an article or event centred around woman\u2019s issues?  Attacking his character doesn\u2019t validate the abuse he suffered. Saying a victim of sexual assault was drinking that night doesn\u2019t absolve the sexual assault.","human_ref_B":"This is purely a hypothetical though. Intent is hypothetical.  I could say that you're writing this post because you're horny for Heard. Or you hate Depp. Or because you're bored and annoyed. None of these are real points because it's a hypothetical.  In any case, I don't think someone needs a foundational support to have an opinion on topical events. I've not been paying much attention to global events, but I still think we need to assist Ukraine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3847.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mi5ji","c_root_id_B":"i5mdp6q","created_at_utc_A":1650553498,"created_at_utc_B":1650551702,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Is this a victim blaming post?","human_ref_B":"I disagree. Not that many men aren't using this as a way to dismiss issues women face because they are. But this affirms a world view some men have, especially online. It's a clear case of the man being victimized, the media portrayal that he is wrong, and there being vindication that he was partly right.   I also don't think your argument where you characterize Depp as partly responsible and a cause of some of the issues to be a good one. There are A LOT of instances of DA or other problems where the victim is not completely innocent.   This happens often when we view police murder of black people and the go to rejection of them being the victim is they were no angel. See Michael Brown's death for example. We even extend that too the Zimmerman case where Trayvon Martin was portrayed as a threat and the media showed pics of him to make him seem older or a potential threat.  You don't need Depp to be a saint to look at what is wrong with the case and to see his side. What you should be arguing is that Depp's situation is not the norm or rather the way we look at DA should not be a clear gender thing where existing feelings that are negative towards women influence it. That while women are the vast majority of DA victims, allowing room for men to come forward who are victims and believing them is important.   Normalizing a culture where any victim can come forward and be believed is important.   Depp's situation can be bad and a sign of when certain cases fall through the cracks or are presented poorly, but you can argue it is not the norm of DA cases.   The problem I see is that there are larger societal trends that lead men to not being viewed as possible victims of abuse in heteronormative relationships. Many men who would view Depp as the victim, may reject that those societal trends exist. Toxic masculinity being one of them. Depp's case can be used as an example of how we need to stop viewing men in a certain way that ends up being harmful to all genders.  Another aspect of this is a lot of your exposure to who is upset is probably people online who already have been radicalized to think a certain way.  EDIT: I also think some men see  \"cancel culture\" or claim Johnny Depp is unable to work. However, he was dropped from what the 3rd installment of a bombing franchise? He still acted from 2016 - present. The 2nd Fantastic Beasts film came out in 2018. He's currently filming an animated series and is in pre-pro for other films.   But the perception of him being barred from working is out there and that is drummed up again by men who are hyper online. It's hard to discuss Depp's career because he cashed in so much in the 2000s up to the mid 2010s that now he can pick and choose his work. It's clear to see the narrative that forms, but that shouldn't dismiss the actual parts of this case and overall takeaway one should have from the problematic nature of how it all went down.   Since 2016 he's regularly worked:  2016: 3 projects  2017: 5 projects  2018: 6 projects  2019: 1 project  2020: 1 project  2021-22: 3 projects  https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/name\/nm0000136\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1796.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mi5ji","c_root_id_B":"i5mdyr2","created_at_utc_A":1650553498,"created_at_utc_B":1650551815,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Is this a victim blaming post?","human_ref_B":"I think the part of this you're missing is the \"cancel culture\" piece. It's not just that Depp is an example of an abused man; it's that he suffered significant consequences for what may have been a lie.  Personally, I don't actually believe in any popular notion of cancel culture, but I do think framing this entirely as a story about domestic abuse and not at least in part a story about the idea of \"cancel culture\" is incorrect.  In some ways, I think it's worse than what you're saying. I would argue the idea behind \"cancel culture\" is that our social systems are failing women, and the court of public opinion is their last resort. The idea behind the people so angry about this case is that they can take that tool from women too if they can prove that a high-profile woman lied.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1683.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5phb6m","c_root_id_B":"i5nnqdw","created_at_utc_A":1650599437,"created_at_utc_B":1650569766,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return.   I think on the balance of the evidence I've been exposed to, this is in some ways a toxic relationship with bad behaviour on both sides. However I don't think the abuse was balanced evenly, and I think that Depp has suffered much more at the hands of Heard, with much of his bad acts being retaliatory.  Anyway, your reason for not supporting Depp seems to be that you find the rest of his supporters unpalatable. In other words, they are not part of your bubble of like minded individuals. Therefore you would prefer to take a contrary position, to ensure you maintain distance or contradict people on the other side.  This is not a good reason to hold a view.","human_ref_B":"You can tell how invested someone is in ending domestic violence in general by comparing their reaction to a wide variety of abuse cases with different gender dynamics. Does someone advocating for male victims care about all the male victims of male rapists in the military? How does an advocate for female victims respond to stories about abusive mothers, or an abusive female teacher, or a murder like the one in the film 'Dear Zachary'?   Do the people who worry about false accusations recognize that men can make them, and women can be victims of false accusations? Do they worry about false accusations that LGBTQ people are 'grooming' children, or that 'all Mexicans are rapists'?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29671.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mdyr2","c_root_id_B":"i5phb6m","created_at_utc_A":1650551815,"created_at_utc_B":1650599437,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think the part of this you're missing is the \"cancel culture\" piece. It's not just that Depp is an example of an abused man; it's that he suffered significant consequences for what may have been a lie.  Personally, I don't actually believe in any popular notion of cancel culture, but I do think framing this entirely as a story about domestic abuse and not at least in part a story about the idea of \"cancel culture\" is incorrect.  In some ways, I think it's worse than what you're saying. I would argue the idea behind \"cancel culture\" is that our social systems are failing women, and the court of public opinion is their last resort. The idea behind the people so angry about this case is that they can take that tool from women too if they can prove that a high-profile woman lied.","human_ref_B":">He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return.   I think on the balance of the evidence I've been exposed to, this is in some ways a toxic relationship with bad behaviour on both sides. However I don't think the abuse was balanced evenly, and I think that Depp has suffered much more at the hands of Heard, with much of his bad acts being retaliatory.  Anyway, your reason for not supporting Depp seems to be that you find the rest of his supporters unpalatable. In other words, they are not part of your bubble of like minded individuals. Therefore you would prefer to take a contrary position, to ensure you maintain distance or contradict people on the other side.  This is not a good reason to hold a view.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":47622.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5phb6m","c_root_id_B":"i5mk3jx","created_at_utc_A":1650599437,"created_at_utc_B":1650554279,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return.   I think on the balance of the evidence I've been exposed to, this is in some ways a toxic relationship with bad behaviour on both sides. However I don't think the abuse was balanced evenly, and I think that Depp has suffered much more at the hands of Heard, with much of his bad acts being retaliatory.  Anyway, your reason for not supporting Depp seems to be that you find the rest of his supporters unpalatable. In other words, they are not part of your bubble of like minded individuals. Therefore you would prefer to take a contrary position, to ensure you maintain distance or contradict people on the other side.  This is not a good reason to hold a view.","human_ref_B":"This is purely a hypothetical though. Intent is hypothetical.  I could say that you're writing this post because you're horny for Heard. Or you hate Depp. Or because you're bored and annoyed. None of these are real points because it's a hypothetical.  In any case, I don't think someone needs a foundational support to have an opinion on topical events. I've not been paying much attention to global events, but I still think we need to assist Ukraine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":45158.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mdyr2","c_root_id_B":"i5miayt","created_at_utc_A":1650551815,"created_at_utc_B":1650553559,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think the part of this you're missing is the \"cancel culture\" piece. It's not just that Depp is an example of an abused man; it's that he suffered significant consequences for what may have been a lie.  Personally, I don't actually believe in any popular notion of cancel culture, but I do think framing this entirely as a story about domestic abuse and not at least in part a story about the idea of \"cancel culture\" is incorrect.  In some ways, I think it's worse than what you're saying. I would argue the idea behind \"cancel culture\" is that our social systems are failing women, and the court of public opinion is their last resort. The idea behind the people so angry about this case is that they can take that tool from women too if they can prove that a high-profile woman lied.","human_ref_B":"I'll argue, as a man, that we are mainly happy because it shows women can be same monsters as we can. It is about equality - nobody is perfect, but when famous woman says her ex husband abused her and it costs him plenty of money and jobs offers and actually she abused him, we want to see justice and we are happy it looks like there will be justice.  Let's be honest, they probably both did drugs and had bad states of mind etc, but only one of those physically abused the other. One. And it wasn't a man. And we men are quite tired how we basically can't be around our younger relatives in public, how every claim from women about rape or abuse etc is generally valid instantly while society laugh at us when we are abused or raped.  It's not about dismissing women's claims and issues they face, it's about same investigation being applied for both men's and women's claims and their health and safety. Equality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1744.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mdyr2","c_root_id_B":"i5mmwkn","created_at_utc_A":1650551815,"created_at_utc_B":1650555387,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think the part of this you're missing is the \"cancel culture\" piece. It's not just that Depp is an example of an abused man; it's that he suffered significant consequences for what may have been a lie.  Personally, I don't actually believe in any popular notion of cancel culture, but I do think framing this entirely as a story about domestic abuse and not at least in part a story about the idea of \"cancel culture\" is incorrect.  In some ways, I think it's worse than what you're saying. I would argue the idea behind \"cancel culture\" is that our social systems are failing women, and the court of public opinion is their last resort. The idea behind the people so angry about this case is that they can take that tool from women too if they can prove that a high-profile woman lied.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m just going to challenge you on one single aspect and one alone.  You wrote:  > This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing  How is being a victim of domestic abuse and defamation of persons character being falsely accused of domestic abuse not a moral issue?  There seems to be some real serious issues about unfairness going on to me and you seem to using moral issues more important to you to ignore them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3572.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mmwkn","c_root_id_B":"i5mk3jx","created_at_utc_A":1650555387,"created_at_utc_B":1650554279,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m just going to challenge you on one single aspect and one alone.  You wrote:  > This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing  How is being a victim of domestic abuse and defamation of persons character being falsely accused of domestic abuse not a moral issue?  There seems to be some real serious issues about unfairness going on to me and you seem to using moral issues more important to you to ignore them.","human_ref_B":"This is purely a hypothetical though. Intent is hypothetical.  I could say that you're writing this post because you're horny for Heard. Or you hate Depp. Or because you're bored and annoyed. None of these are real points because it's a hypothetical.  In any case, I don't think someone needs a foundational support to have an opinion on topical events. I've not been paying much attention to global events, but I still think we need to assist Ukraine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1108.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5nnqdw","c_root_id_B":"i5r05a3","created_at_utc_A":1650569766,"created_at_utc_B":1650636029,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You can tell how invested someone is in ending domestic violence in general by comparing their reaction to a wide variety of abuse cases with different gender dynamics. Does someone advocating for male victims care about all the male victims of male rapists in the military? How does an advocate for female victims respond to stories about abusive mothers, or an abusive female teacher, or a murder like the one in the film 'Dear Zachary'?   Do the people who worry about false accusations recognize that men can make them, and women can be victims of false accusations? Do they worry about false accusations that LGBTQ people are 'grooming' children, or that 'all Mexicans are rapists'?","human_ref_B":"I mean, I could ssy the same for every case of domestic abuse where the woman suffers, that they all just want to play the victim. Yet I suspect you would get angry at that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":66263.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5r05a3","c_root_id_B":"i5mdyr2","created_at_utc_A":1650636029,"created_at_utc_B":1650551815,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I mean, I could ssy the same for every case of domestic abuse where the woman suffers, that they all just want to play the victim. Yet I suspect you would get angry at that.","human_ref_B":"I think the part of this you're missing is the \"cancel culture\" piece. It's not just that Depp is an example of an abused man; it's that he suffered significant consequences for what may have been a lie.  Personally, I don't actually believe in any popular notion of cancel culture, but I do think framing this entirely as a story about domestic abuse and not at least in part a story about the idea of \"cancel culture\" is incorrect.  In some ways, I think it's worse than what you're saying. I would argue the idea behind \"cancel culture\" is that our social systems are failing women, and the court of public opinion is their last resort. The idea behind the people so angry about this case is that they can take that tool from women too if they can prove that a high-profile woman lied.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":84214.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mk3jx","c_root_id_B":"i5r05a3","created_at_utc_A":1650554279,"created_at_utc_B":1650636029,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This is purely a hypothetical though. Intent is hypothetical.  I could say that you're writing this post because you're horny for Heard. Or you hate Depp. Or because you're bored and annoyed. None of these are real points because it's a hypothetical.  In any case, I don't think someone needs a foundational support to have an opinion on topical events. I've not been paying much attention to global events, but I still think we need to assist Ukraine.","human_ref_B":"I mean, I could ssy the same for every case of domestic abuse where the woman suffers, that they all just want to play the victim. Yet I suspect you would get angry at that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":81750.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5nnqdw","c_root_id_B":"i5mk3jx","created_at_utc_A":1650569766,"created_at_utc_B":1650554279,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You can tell how invested someone is in ending domestic violence in general by comparing their reaction to a wide variety of abuse cases with different gender dynamics. Does someone advocating for male victims care about all the male victims of male rapists in the military? How does an advocate for female victims respond to stories about abusive mothers, or an abusive female teacher, or a murder like the one in the film 'Dear Zachary'?   Do the people who worry about false accusations recognize that men can make them, and women can be victims of false accusations? Do they worry about false accusations that LGBTQ people are 'grooming' children, or that 'all Mexicans are rapists'?","human_ref_B":"This is purely a hypothetical though. Intent is hypothetical.  I could say that you're writing this post because you're horny for Heard. Or you hate Depp. Or because you're bored and annoyed. None of these are real points because it's a hypothetical.  In any case, I don't think someone needs a foundational support to have an opinion on topical events. I've not been paying much attention to global events, but I still think we need to assist Ukraine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15487.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mk3jx","c_root_id_B":"i5tlobf","created_at_utc_A":1650554279,"created_at_utc_B":1650675108,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This is purely a hypothetical though. Intent is hypothetical.  I could say that you're writing this post because you're horny for Heard. Or you hate Depp. Or because you're bored and annoyed. None of these are real points because it's a hypothetical.  In any case, I don't think someone needs a foundational support to have an opinion on topical events. I've not been paying much attention to global events, but I still think we need to assist Ukraine.","human_ref_B":"\u2018He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.\u2019  Perfect take of their relationship. Finally. Everyone is so rabid in their support for him it\u2019s unhinged","labels":0,"seconds_difference":120829.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mk3jx","c_root_id_B":"i5tzomv","created_at_utc_A":1650554279,"created_at_utc_B":1650681907,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This is purely a hypothetical though. Intent is hypothetical.  I could say that you're writing this post because you're horny for Heard. Or you hate Depp. Or because you're bored and annoyed. None of these are real points because it's a hypothetical.  In any case, I don't think someone needs a foundational support to have an opinion on topical events. I've not been paying much attention to global events, but I still think we need to assist Ukraine.","human_ref_B":"Are you aware of the term reactive abuse? Amber could have been the one swinging the hits first and berating him til he broke.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":127628.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5uz40o","c_root_id_B":"i5mk3jx","created_at_utc_A":1650707011,"created_at_utc_B":1650554279,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I think its mostly about wanting to point out the rabid hypocrisity and gynocentricity of our current society.  A single statement from a woman with no evidence provided destroys. But a man needs millions, if not tens of millions of dollars to throw at lawsuits for people to EVEN ENTERTAIN the concept that he could have been abused.","human_ref_B":"This is purely a hypothetical though. Intent is hypothetical.  I could say that you're writing this post because you're horny for Heard. Or you hate Depp. Or because you're bored and annoyed. None of these are real points because it's a hypothetical.  In any case, I don't think someone needs a foundational support to have an opinion on topical events. I've not been paying much attention to global events, but I still think we need to assist Ukraine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":152732.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u8ocxq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Most of the men up in arms over the Amber Heard\/Johnny Depp trial don\u2019t care about domestic abuse or the actual facts of the case. They just want to feel like oppressed victims. There I said it. As a man myself, I find this crap both sad and pathetic. This ain\u2019t about morality or the right thing and most of the men up in arms over it are doing so because this is a chance to use the case as a cudgel to shut women up from speaking out about legitimate and valid issues they face in society *from men*. Be it lower pay, sexism, harassment, domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault.   A lot of men hear that and, rather then reflect on the issues women have brought forward, default to *\u201dnOT AlL mEN\u201d* or in this case *\u201dMEn sUfFEr ToO!\u201d*. Johnny depp isn\u2019t the martyr men on this website make him out to be. He\u2019s a screwed up, spoiled, crazy rich guy who entered into a toxic relationship with an equally crazy woman and they brought out the worst in each other.   Good lord, check out the witness testimony from Depp\u2019s own former associates or friends. He was doing coke the night before taking his daughter to school. He threatened to kill himself and Amber Heard.   He\u2019s a sad, broken down middle aged man that\u2019s done bad things to his wife and had bad things done to him in return. Not Christ on the cross.","c_root_id_A":"i5mk3jx","c_root_id_B":"i67kfzr","created_at_utc_A":1650554279,"created_at_utc_B":1650936747,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This is purely a hypothetical though. Intent is hypothetical.  I could say that you're writing this post because you're horny for Heard. Or you hate Depp. Or because you're bored and annoyed. None of these are real points because it's a hypothetical.  In any case, I don't think someone needs a foundational support to have an opinion on topical events. I've not been paying much attention to global events, but I still think we need to assist Ukraine.","human_ref_B":"There was a thread in askreddit a year ago and most people had a confirmation bias against Johnny Depp simply because he was a man. He may be an imperfect victim but this raises the issue of male victims being ignored or stigmatized sometimes even blamed and most people are smart enough to understand this. For the few that wants to take a hateful angle towards women well they are bad apple everywhere I guess and they will always be there even if the victim was perfect unlike JD","labels":0,"seconds_difference":382468.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"znbv08","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Waking up early is overrated I\u2019m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it\u2019s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you \u201csleep all day\u201d despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I\u2019m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told \u201coh must be nice to work banker hours\u201d like what\u2019s the difference, we\u2019re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"j0g9aig","c_root_id_B":"j0g7ov8","created_at_utc_A":1671194475,"created_at_utc_B":1671193492,"score_A":743,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":">disciplined  Also known as \"capable of following rules and routines\". Most important part about waking up early is that you have a routine and you wake up when you are supposed to wake and don't lie in bed pressing snooze button and browsing Reddit.","human_ref_B":"The real advantage is avoiding traffic, which can suck up a ton of time out of your life. Working night shift accomplishes this. Driving at 4 am also accomplishes this, especially if it means you can leave early in the afternoon. Lots of people can\u2019t opt for a full night shift, but can shift their day earlier than other commuters","labels":1,"seconds_difference":983.0,"score_ratio":20.6388888889}
+{"post_id":"znbv08","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Waking up early is overrated I\u2019m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it\u2019s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you \u201csleep all day\u201d despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I\u2019m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told \u201coh must be nice to work banker hours\u201d like what\u2019s the difference, we\u2019re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"j0g9aig","c_root_id_B":"j0g7iph","created_at_utc_A":1671194475,"created_at_utc_B":1671193384,"score_A":743,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":">disciplined  Also known as \"capable of following rules and routines\". Most important part about waking up early is that you have a routine and you wake up when you are supposed to wake and don't lie in bed pressing snooze button and browsing Reddit.","human_ref_B":"Actually it does of mine like whenever I wake up early for our prayers (i am Muslim )then it really refresh me and also motivates me that i have two to three hours extra compared to my enemy (not enemy competitor).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1091.0,"score_ratio":30.9583333333}
+{"post_id":"znbv08","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Waking up early is overrated I\u2019m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it\u2019s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you \u201csleep all day\u201d despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I\u2019m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told \u201coh must be nice to work banker hours\u201d like what\u2019s the difference, we\u2019re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"j0ged6k","c_root_id_B":"j0geu92","created_at_utc_A":1671197265,"created_at_utc_B":1671197508,"score_A":127,"score_B":234,"human_ref_A":"There are some tasks that are best done as the sun is rising, such as watering plants. Also, in the hot days of summer, you can get a lot done before the hottest part of the day when you'll need to take more breaks to relieve stress.  More to this, naps in the middle of the day when the days are oppressively hot, allow you to sleep less at night.  Then, add in that you are getting to tasks first so you get the best selection of produce\/foods, stocked shelves at retail stores, shorter lines everywhere, less traffic, etc. Basically, your efficiency improves at every errand.  Edit: People keep replying iterations of \"Not my hobbies,\" \"The weather isn't always like that,\" or \"I can do all those things in the evening.\"   You all know that you can change your routines, right? In fact, healthy people don't need completely rigid routines at all. You can be a morning person who stays out late once in awhile (or even a couple times a week). You can be a night-owl who gets up early to see a sunrise. No one schedule is best, but being a stick-in-the-mud type who needs to be accommodated at every turn is the worst kind of person to be.","human_ref_B":"Are the waking up early because they are motivated, self-starting people, and that makes them successful, or do they have a genetic mutation that lets them get by on less sleep, and they erroneously attribute their waking up early to their motivation levels.   > If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in  I wake up at 4 every day. I go to bed around midnight. I don't know if I am a mutant, but I wouldn't be surprised if I had this mutation. I've been this way since I was a kid. And while I am mildly successful, I am not at all disciplined. I just sleep less.  As for how it is rated. I would rate waking up early pretty high. B- at least. The best things are seeing sunrises regularly, less traffic on the way to work, I never miss McDonalds breakfast, and it is the only time my house is truly quiet. I don't know if that rating is above where it should be by your metrics, but by mine it is pretty sweet.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":243.0,"score_ratio":1.842519685}
+{"post_id":"znbv08","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Waking up early is overrated I\u2019m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it\u2019s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you \u201csleep all day\u201d despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I\u2019m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told \u201coh must be nice to work banker hours\u201d like what\u2019s the difference, we\u2019re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"j0g7ov8","c_root_id_B":"j0geu92","created_at_utc_A":1671193492,"created_at_utc_B":1671197508,"score_A":36,"score_B":234,"human_ref_A":"The real advantage is avoiding traffic, which can suck up a ton of time out of your life. Working night shift accomplishes this. Driving at 4 am also accomplishes this, especially if it means you can leave early in the afternoon. Lots of people can\u2019t opt for a full night shift, but can shift their day earlier than other commuters","human_ref_B":"Are the waking up early because they are motivated, self-starting people, and that makes them successful, or do they have a genetic mutation that lets them get by on less sleep, and they erroneously attribute their waking up early to their motivation levels.   > If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in  I wake up at 4 every day. I go to bed around midnight. I don't know if I am a mutant, but I wouldn't be surprised if I had this mutation. I've been this way since I was a kid. And while I am mildly successful, I am not at all disciplined. I just sleep less.  As for how it is rated. I would rate waking up early pretty high. B- at least. The best things are seeing sunrises regularly, less traffic on the way to work, I never miss McDonalds breakfast, and it is the only time my house is truly quiet. I don't know if that rating is above where it should be by your metrics, but by mine it is pretty sweet.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4016.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"znbv08","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Waking up early is overrated I\u2019m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it\u2019s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you \u201csleep all day\u201d despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I\u2019m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told \u201coh must be nice to work banker hours\u201d like what\u2019s the difference, we\u2019re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"j0geu92","c_root_id_B":"j0g7iph","created_at_utc_A":1671197508,"created_at_utc_B":1671193384,"score_A":234,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Are the waking up early because they are motivated, self-starting people, and that makes them successful, or do they have a genetic mutation that lets them get by on less sleep, and they erroneously attribute their waking up early to their motivation levels.   > If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in  I wake up at 4 every day. I go to bed around midnight. I don't know if I am a mutant, but I wouldn't be surprised if I had this mutation. I've been this way since I was a kid. And while I am mildly successful, I am not at all disciplined. I just sleep less.  As for how it is rated. I would rate waking up early pretty high. B- at least. The best things are seeing sunrises regularly, less traffic on the way to work, I never miss McDonalds breakfast, and it is the only time my house is truly quiet. I don't know if that rating is above where it should be by your metrics, but by mine it is pretty sweet.","human_ref_B":"Actually it does of mine like whenever I wake up early for our prayers (i am Muslim )then it really refresh me and also motivates me that i have two to three hours extra compared to my enemy (not enemy competitor).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4124.0,"score_ratio":9.75}
+{"post_id":"znbv08","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Waking up early is overrated I\u2019m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it\u2019s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you \u201csleep all day\u201d despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I\u2019m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told \u201coh must be nice to work banker hours\u201d like what\u2019s the difference, we\u2019re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"j0ged6k","c_root_id_B":"j0g7ov8","created_at_utc_A":1671197265,"created_at_utc_B":1671193492,"score_A":127,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"There are some tasks that are best done as the sun is rising, such as watering plants. Also, in the hot days of summer, you can get a lot done before the hottest part of the day when you'll need to take more breaks to relieve stress.  More to this, naps in the middle of the day when the days are oppressively hot, allow you to sleep less at night.  Then, add in that you are getting to tasks first so you get the best selection of produce\/foods, stocked shelves at retail stores, shorter lines everywhere, less traffic, etc. Basically, your efficiency improves at every errand.  Edit: People keep replying iterations of \"Not my hobbies,\" \"The weather isn't always like that,\" or \"I can do all those things in the evening.\"   You all know that you can change your routines, right? In fact, healthy people don't need completely rigid routines at all. You can be a morning person who stays out late once in awhile (or even a couple times a week). You can be a night-owl who gets up early to see a sunrise. No one schedule is best, but being a stick-in-the-mud type who needs to be accommodated at every turn is the worst kind of person to be.","human_ref_B":"The real advantage is avoiding traffic, which can suck up a ton of time out of your life. Working night shift accomplishes this. Driving at 4 am also accomplishes this, especially if it means you can leave early in the afternoon. Lots of people can\u2019t opt for a full night shift, but can shift their day earlier than other commuters","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3773.0,"score_ratio":3.5277777778}
+{"post_id":"znbv08","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Waking up early is overrated I\u2019m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it\u2019s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you \u201csleep all day\u201d despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I\u2019m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told \u201coh must be nice to work banker hours\u201d like what\u2019s the difference, we\u2019re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"j0ged6k","c_root_id_B":"j0g7iph","created_at_utc_A":1671197265,"created_at_utc_B":1671193384,"score_A":127,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"There are some tasks that are best done as the sun is rising, such as watering plants. Also, in the hot days of summer, you can get a lot done before the hottest part of the day when you'll need to take more breaks to relieve stress.  More to this, naps in the middle of the day when the days are oppressively hot, allow you to sleep less at night.  Then, add in that you are getting to tasks first so you get the best selection of produce\/foods, stocked shelves at retail stores, shorter lines everywhere, less traffic, etc. Basically, your efficiency improves at every errand.  Edit: People keep replying iterations of \"Not my hobbies,\" \"The weather isn't always like that,\" or \"I can do all those things in the evening.\"   You all know that you can change your routines, right? In fact, healthy people don't need completely rigid routines at all. You can be a morning person who stays out late once in awhile (or even a couple times a week). You can be a night-owl who gets up early to see a sunrise. No one schedule is best, but being a stick-in-the-mud type who needs to be accommodated at every turn is the worst kind of person to be.","human_ref_B":"Actually it does of mine like whenever I wake up early for our prayers (i am Muslim )then it really refresh me and also motivates me that i have two to three hours extra compared to my enemy (not enemy competitor).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3881.0,"score_ratio":5.2916666667}
+{"post_id":"znbv08","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Waking up early is overrated I\u2019m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it\u2019s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you \u201csleep all day\u201d despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I\u2019m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told \u201coh must be nice to work banker hours\u201d like what\u2019s the difference, we\u2019re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"j0gh21q","c_root_id_B":"j0g7ov8","created_at_utc_A":1671198623,"created_at_utc_B":1671193492,"score_A":59,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"the advice to wake up early applies very differently to people who work night shift.  My work starts at 8am.  If I wake up at 4am I get four hours at the start of my day which I get to control.  No boss.  No demanding customers.  Nobody coming to me with problems.  I'm up before everyone else.  So if you work night shift and start at 10pm, then waking up at 6pm would be the equivalent for you.  You're still up before all your work obligations start (although not before your family which is a disadvantage).  Either way, if you wake up and start playing video games.  then you will still be more successful... but only at video games.  a routine of early morning video game playing will probably improve your ranking in a competitive game.  The theory is that when you first wake up, you are at your best.  You are fully rested.  You will only become less rested as the day goes on.  So controlling those first few hours instead of immediately going to work or school gives you a leg up.","human_ref_B":"The real advantage is avoiding traffic, which can suck up a ton of time out of your life. Working night shift accomplishes this. Driving at 4 am also accomplishes this, especially if it means you can leave early in the afternoon. Lots of people can\u2019t opt for a full night shift, but can shift their day earlier than other commuters","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5131.0,"score_ratio":1.6388888889}
+{"post_id":"znbv08","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Waking up early is overrated I\u2019m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it\u2019s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you \u201csleep all day\u201d despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I\u2019m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told \u201coh must be nice to work banker hours\u201d like what\u2019s the difference, we\u2019re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"j0g7iph","c_root_id_B":"j0gh21q","created_at_utc_A":1671193384,"created_at_utc_B":1671198623,"score_A":24,"score_B":59,"human_ref_A":"Actually it does of mine like whenever I wake up early for our prayers (i am Muslim )then it really refresh me and also motivates me that i have two to three hours extra compared to my enemy (not enemy competitor).","human_ref_B":"the advice to wake up early applies very differently to people who work night shift.  My work starts at 8am.  If I wake up at 4am I get four hours at the start of my day which I get to control.  No boss.  No demanding customers.  Nobody coming to me with problems.  I'm up before everyone else.  So if you work night shift and start at 10pm, then waking up at 6pm would be the equivalent for you.  You're still up before all your work obligations start (although not before your family which is a disadvantage).  Either way, if you wake up and start playing video games.  then you will still be more successful... but only at video games.  a routine of early morning video game playing will probably improve your ranking in a competitive game.  The theory is that when you first wake up, you are at your best.  You are fully rested.  You will only become less rested as the day goes on.  So controlling those first few hours instead of immediately going to work or school gives you a leg up.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5239.0,"score_ratio":2.4583333333}
+{"post_id":"znbv08","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Waking up early is overrated I\u2019m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it\u2019s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you \u201csleep all day\u201d despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I\u2019m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told \u201coh must be nice to work banker hours\u201d like what\u2019s the difference, we\u2019re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"j0g7ov8","c_root_id_B":"j0g7iph","created_at_utc_A":1671193492,"created_at_utc_B":1671193384,"score_A":36,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"The real advantage is avoiding traffic, which can suck up a ton of time out of your life. Working night shift accomplishes this. Driving at 4 am also accomplishes this, especially if it means you can leave early in the afternoon. Lots of people can\u2019t opt for a full night shift, but can shift their day earlier than other commuters","human_ref_B":"Actually it does of mine like whenever I wake up early for our prayers (i am Muslim )then it really refresh me and also motivates me that i have two to three hours extra compared to my enemy (not enemy competitor).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":108.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"znbv08","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Waking up early is overrated I\u2019m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it\u2019s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you\u2019ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you \u201csleep all day\u201d despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I\u2019m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told \u201coh must be nice to work banker hours\u201d like what\u2019s the difference, we\u2019re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"j0h0zds","c_root_id_B":"j0h06s5","created_at_utc_A":1671207012,"created_at_utc_B":1671206710,"score_A":24,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Waking up with the sun is healthier for you physically and mentally. Our bodies respond to sunlight physiologically, it changes how we metabolize and how are energy curve travels. Humans need light to function. For most of all time we only had light during the day and by the fire. And predators with better vision hunted us at night. Due to millions of years of this situation, humans on average operate at their full capacity waking up early(with the sun) and sleeping shortly after dark.   And these people who say it's soo integral and beneficial, they aren't just in their heads about it. There is a sense of pride that comes around 11am looking back on your morning and seeing how much you got done, and the day is still young. That sense of accomplishment improves your mood and makes it easier to push yourself to do it again tomorrow.   None of this might apply to you specifically based on your particular circumstances, but waking up early is not \"overrated\", if anything it's underrated by the millions of modern people like me who, even knowing all the benefits, still don't do it.","human_ref_B":"Regardless of whether it actually means someone is more disciplined, it is *perceived* as being more disciplined. People perceived as more disciplined can be awarded opportunities others may not get. IE, you might be the most productive employee at your company, but if you show up at 11 am everyday instead of 7, and your boss perceives you as lazy, you will never advance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":302.0,"score_ratio":1.8461538462}
+{"post_id":"yxkojp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Romulan Ale should not be illegal We've been told this time and again, often enough to believe it really is a law.  But why?  It gives a terrible headache and hangover?  So do many alcohols.  Is it a diplomatic stratagem?  A Romulan plot?  A ploy?  Something Q dreamt up to toy with us?    Does the idea of Federation Vatniks consuming what is presumably a high end Romulan product offend them?  Has too much of it wound up being used as a floor cleaner\/desert topping?    Did it, in fact, almost provoke another war?  We simply don't have any evidence it did.  So let's vote in favour of interstellar understanding and cooperation.  Raise a glass of Romulan Ale, and let's send them all the Bud Lite they can hold down!","c_root_id_A":"iwpak5l","c_root_id_B":"iwp5wxo","created_at_utc_A":1668677799,"created_at_utc_B":1668673581,"score_A":24,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I'm not up on all the iterations of Star Trek, but I always assumed it was economic sanctions against the Romulans rather than a health concern.  Memory Alpha suggests it was due to a trade embargo.","human_ref_B":"Apparently it's intoxicating strength is above regulation. It's much, much stronger than most alcoholic drinks.  In any case, it's a particularly odd place to attack the arbitrary nature of the legality of mind altering substances. Alcohol itself is far stronger such a substance than many milder drugs but there is ample on-screen evidence that U.F.P. officers are allowed to consume alcohol and do so often, yet I've yet to see one enjoy cannabis or ecstasy, all milder than alcohol in that respect.  Indeed, I would argue that virtually anything that's banned \u201cfor one's own safety\u201d is not done so for safety but moral puritanism as many things quite hazardous are seemingly legal when there be no moral cultural opposition.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4218.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7gsmv","c_root_id_B":"he7h8am","created_at_utc_A":1632567225,"created_at_utc_B":1632567544,"score_A":149,"score_B":478,"human_ref_A":"I would agree with you that there are a lot of what you call \"men's groups\" that display toxic masculinity and as such harm the cause of solving men's issues. However, I would also say that there are toxic \"women's groups\" that harm the progress of womens rights, such as TERFs.  Now, you could argue that the counterproductive \"men's groups\" are more numerous and dangerous, and you would probably be right - but that makes this a quantitative issue, not a qualitative one. There are both productive men's\/women's groups and toxic men's\/women's groups - on the male side of things there just sadly seems to be more toxicity than productivity.","human_ref_B":"The ones that do this get the most media coverage. There are good ones out there like the men's shed and blokes advice and local dads groups that do good work supporting men with their struggles either as they arise or with preventative measures (like creating a support system)  I'm sure there are lots more out there, but media likes an uproar so I don't know what they are.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":319.0,"score_ratio":3.2080536913}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7h8am","c_root_id_B":"he7h4um","created_at_utc_A":1632567544,"created_at_utc_B":1632567472,"score_A":478,"score_B":112,"human_ref_A":"The ones that do this get the most media coverage. There are good ones out there like the men's shed and blokes advice and local dads groups that do good work supporting men with their struggles either as they arise or with preventative measures (like creating a support system)  I'm sure there are lots more out there, but media likes an uproar so I don't know what they are.","human_ref_B":"Men's issues are difficult  to  advocate because of 1 problem which *both* women and men continue to perpetuate.  MEN ARE EXPECTED TO SOLVE ALL THEIR PROBLEMS ON THEIR OWN, AND ARE CRITICIZED, AUSTROCIZED OR BULLIED IF THEY DO OTHERWISE.  Let's  take the two groups you have singled out.  Incels.  Bad news spreads faster than good news. And the idea of the virgin, lonely male killer is one that is easy to stick, and everytime it happens, the stereotype gets worse.  But the problem here is, we as a society simply refuse to understand what brings a young man to this point. We categorize them as monsters and creeps....so they remain isolated...their problems never get solved...and then the unfortunate happens.  A lot of incel related violence could be solved if someone took the time to mentor these young men into something productive, showed them how to socialize properly.  MRA's are a bit tougher to handle. These are usually older men who have been jaded.  But remember MRA literally stands for men's rights activism ...by right it is supposed to be advocacy for men's issues.  If you have a problem with MRA's but you are still interested in men's problems, I suggest you join an MRA yourself and try to get their message out in a way that sounds less hateful and mysogynistic.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":72.0,"score_ratio":4.2678571429}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7sklp","c_root_id_B":"he7gsmv","created_at_utc_A":1632574450,"created_at_utc_B":1632567225,"score_A":155,"score_B":149,"human_ref_A":"You've got it the wrong way round. The only reason those groups get attention is because men's issues are usually not given any attention. The fact that such groups have any prominence at all is a symptom of people ignoring the underlying issues that lead to such groups forming.  The behaviors exhibited by such groups are not specific to men at all. Misogyny and the -pill-related lines of thought exist among women as well, but they never achieve any sort of general label because the drive towards fixing issues that women suffer from effectively insulates such behavior as well.  For instance, a man who \"expects\" to get a woman who fulfills a woman's traditional gender roles (eg. sex, housekeeping, bear kids, etc) is labeled as an incel, yet a woman who \"expects\" the same (eg. money, romance, emotional support, etc) has no counterpart. A natural consequence of women's gender roles facing much more criticism is that anyone who can be a target of that criticism is highlighted much more.","human_ref_B":"I would agree with you that there are a lot of what you call \"men's groups\" that display toxic masculinity and as such harm the cause of solving men's issues. However, I would also say that there are toxic \"women's groups\" that harm the progress of womens rights, such as TERFs.  Now, you could argue that the counterproductive \"men's groups\" are more numerous and dangerous, and you would probably be right - but that makes this a quantitative issue, not a qualitative one. There are both productive men's\/women's groups and toxic men's\/women's groups - on the male side of things there just sadly seems to be more toxicity than productivity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7225.0,"score_ratio":1.0402684564}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7h4um","c_root_id_B":"he7sklp","created_at_utc_A":1632567472,"created_at_utc_B":1632574450,"score_A":112,"score_B":155,"human_ref_A":"Men's issues are difficult  to  advocate because of 1 problem which *both* women and men continue to perpetuate.  MEN ARE EXPECTED TO SOLVE ALL THEIR PROBLEMS ON THEIR OWN, AND ARE CRITICIZED, AUSTROCIZED OR BULLIED IF THEY DO OTHERWISE.  Let's  take the two groups you have singled out.  Incels.  Bad news spreads faster than good news. And the idea of the virgin, lonely male killer is one that is easy to stick, and everytime it happens, the stereotype gets worse.  But the problem here is, we as a society simply refuse to understand what brings a young man to this point. We categorize them as monsters and creeps....so they remain isolated...their problems never get solved...and then the unfortunate happens.  A lot of incel related violence could be solved if someone took the time to mentor these young men into something productive, showed them how to socialize properly.  MRA's are a bit tougher to handle. These are usually older men who have been jaded.  But remember MRA literally stands for men's rights activism ...by right it is supposed to be advocacy for men's issues.  If you have a problem with MRA's but you are still interested in men's problems, I suggest you join an MRA yourself and try to get their message out in a way that sounds less hateful and mysogynistic.","human_ref_B":"You've got it the wrong way round. The only reason those groups get attention is because men's issues are usually not given any attention. The fact that such groups have any prominence at all is a symptom of people ignoring the underlying issues that lead to such groups forming.  The behaviors exhibited by such groups are not specific to men at all. Misogyny and the -pill-related lines of thought exist among women as well, but they never achieve any sort of general label because the drive towards fixing issues that women suffer from effectively insulates such behavior as well.  For instance, a man who \"expects\" to get a woman who fulfills a woman's traditional gender roles (eg. sex, housekeeping, bear kids, etc) is labeled as an incel, yet a woman who \"expects\" the same (eg. money, romance, emotional support, etc) has no counterpart. A natural consequence of women's gender roles facing much more criticism is that anyone who can be a target of that criticism is highlighted much more.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6978.0,"score_ratio":1.3839285714}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7sacb","c_root_id_B":"he7sklp","created_at_utc_A":1632574298,"created_at_utc_B":1632574450,"score_A":79,"score_B":155,"human_ref_A":"> comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective),   Why do you think it's a bogus issue?  It course there are forms of FGM that are lot more extreme.  But even forms that ARE biologically comparable (e.g. removal of clitoral hood only) are banned, while male circumcision is not.  This is called Type Ia FGM and it's still illegal in every western country.  The inability of the society aknowledge that genital mutilation of millions of male babies is a problem, shows me that the society is simply not ready to hear about Men's issues, and this has nothing to do with existing men's rights groups.","human_ref_B":"You've got it the wrong way round. The only reason those groups get attention is because men's issues are usually not given any attention. The fact that such groups have any prominence at all is a symptom of people ignoring the underlying issues that lead to such groups forming.  The behaviors exhibited by such groups are not specific to men at all. Misogyny and the -pill-related lines of thought exist among women as well, but they never achieve any sort of general label because the drive towards fixing issues that women suffer from effectively insulates such behavior as well.  For instance, a man who \"expects\" to get a woman who fulfills a woman's traditional gender roles (eg. sex, housekeeping, bear kids, etc) is labeled as an incel, yet a woman who \"expects\" the same (eg. money, romance, emotional support, etc) has no counterpart. A natural consequence of women's gender roles facing much more criticism is that anyone who can be a target of that criticism is highlighted much more.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":152.0,"score_ratio":1.9620253165}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7ow4y","c_root_id_B":"he7sklp","created_at_utc_A":1632572442,"created_at_utc_B":1632574450,"score_A":20,"score_B":155,"human_ref_A":"Men\u2019s issues often do stem from feminism. Feminists abusing Erin Pizzey forcing her leave her own domestic abuse shelter because she claimed that men face as much domestic abuse as women. Feminists lobbying to redefine rape to exclude forced penetration, which many states and the FBI ended up agreeing to.   The falsification of rape and sexual abuse statistics. They claim only 5% of cases result in a conviction for the accused, and that only 3% (it\u2019s 3-11% depending on which study you use) of rape cases are false, both statistics are accurate based on what we know. However feminists will claim that the 3-11% statistic is reason to assume that most people accused will be guilty because statistically very few can prove their innocence, meanwhile they\u2019ll also argue that the 5% of convictions is far too low and is evidence that the bar for a conviction is set too high. Realistically we don\u2019t have enough evidence for ~90% of cases because they allegedly happen in the privacy of a home thus making it a he said-she said case, or in a dark setting so sexual assaulters(?) can\u2019t be identified.  Bodily autonomy is a one way conversation. Everyone talks about the abortion laws in Texas (which will likely be removed at some point due to public pressure) yet nobody actually puts pressures on governments to illegal use circumcision in infants. Likewise nobody puts pressures on governments to legalise paternal abortion, removing any responsibilities a biological father may have towards any children they might have (if they don\u2019t decide if there\u2019s a baby, why do they become responsible?). Along the same lines of that point, feminists in France illegalised paternity tests without the mother\u2019s permission. Paternity fraud is a huge issue in France, men aren\u2019t even legally allowed to test to see if the child they are paying for is their\u2019s.   The whole women\u2019s suffrage issue is still talked about to this day too, as if men could vote for centuries and women have only just got the vote. In reality women got the right to vote just 10 years after men of the same age in the UK. And in the USA voting for men is still dependent on conscription to the draft. That little caveat was never included for women and at the time of getting the vote many women didn\u2019t even want it because it was originally going to include the same terms. That isn\u2019t equality.  And not to mention feminists are making it so women get more lenient punishments in court for the same crime - https:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-1311004\/amp\/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html  Feminism is not about equality.","human_ref_B":"You've got it the wrong way round. The only reason those groups get attention is because men's issues are usually not given any attention. The fact that such groups have any prominence at all is a symptom of people ignoring the underlying issues that lead to such groups forming.  The behaviors exhibited by such groups are not specific to men at all. Misogyny and the -pill-related lines of thought exist among women as well, but they never achieve any sort of general label because the drive towards fixing issues that women suffer from effectively insulates such behavior as well.  For instance, a man who \"expects\" to get a woman who fulfills a woman's traditional gender roles (eg. sex, housekeeping, bear kids, etc) is labeled as an incel, yet a woman who \"expects\" the same (eg. money, romance, emotional support, etc) has no counterpart. A natural consequence of women's gender roles facing much more criticism is that anyone who can be a target of that criticism is highlighted much more.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2008.0,"score_ratio":7.75}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7hhzf","c_root_id_B":"he7sklp","created_at_utc_A":1632567746,"created_at_utc_B":1632574450,"score_A":13,"score_B":155,"human_ref_A":"Most normal people outside of reddit never heard of any of these groups.  Why would a bunch of nerds online complaining that they can't get dates have an effect on actual jurisprudence? Do you really think that is how the legal system operates, on the criteria of judging case law based on some annoyance factor?  The real reason these issues aren't addressed is because they are all separate things, each one the result of a myriad of complex societal factors that do not happen merely \"Because Men\", and it's just happenstance that they primarily effect men as a commonality.  I'll give you an example. There are actually more homeless women then men. But the majority of homeless women are fleeing domestic abuse, and because of that they have battered womens shelters, and because they can stay there they aren't counted as homeless.  Much less homeless men are fleeing domestic abuse, so they don't have battered men's shelters, etc.  So the problem of men's homelessness compared to women is an issue of how homeless is classified more than any issue between the two groups, and that doesn't even touch on the actual issues of homelessness itself.","human_ref_B":"You've got it the wrong way round. The only reason those groups get attention is because men's issues are usually not given any attention. The fact that such groups have any prominence at all is a symptom of people ignoring the underlying issues that lead to such groups forming.  The behaviors exhibited by such groups are not specific to men at all. Misogyny and the -pill-related lines of thought exist among women as well, but they never achieve any sort of general label because the drive towards fixing issues that women suffer from effectively insulates such behavior as well.  For instance, a man who \"expects\" to get a woman who fulfills a woman's traditional gender roles (eg. sex, housekeeping, bear kids, etc) is labeled as an incel, yet a woman who \"expects\" the same (eg. money, romance, emotional support, etc) has no counterpart. A natural consequence of women's gender roles facing much more criticism is that anyone who can be a target of that criticism is highlighted much more.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6704.0,"score_ratio":11.9230769231}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7mqwq","c_root_id_B":"he7sklp","created_at_utc_A":1632571177,"created_at_utc_B":1632574450,"score_A":7,"score_B":155,"human_ref_A":"The reason you should change your view is their are female groups just like those male groups you mention. Radfems, female incels etc. so clearly the existence of these groups doesn\u2019t change the attention the underlying cause receives for females, so why should it change the attention men\u2019s issues receive?","human_ref_B":"You've got it the wrong way round. The only reason those groups get attention is because men's issues are usually not given any attention. The fact that such groups have any prominence at all is a symptom of people ignoring the underlying issues that lead to such groups forming.  The behaviors exhibited by such groups are not specific to men at all. Misogyny and the -pill-related lines of thought exist among women as well, but they never achieve any sort of general label because the drive towards fixing issues that women suffer from effectively insulates such behavior as well.  For instance, a man who \"expects\" to get a woman who fulfills a woman's traditional gender roles (eg. sex, housekeeping, bear kids, etc) is labeled as an incel, yet a woman who \"expects\" the same (eg. money, romance, emotional support, etc) has no counterpart. A natural consequence of women's gender roles facing much more criticism is that anyone who can be a target of that criticism is highlighted much more.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3273.0,"score_ratio":22.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7j8ik","c_root_id_B":"he7sklp","created_at_utc_A":1632568952,"created_at_utc_B":1632574450,"score_A":6,"score_B":155,"human_ref_A":">there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc.  Before we look for a specific reason these issues aren't being addressed, I think it's probably best to zoom out a bit to think about how many issues there are that need more attention in general.   We're just not as efficient as we'd like to be at addressing problems.   If there's a major bottleneck that makes it hard to solve issues, you want to widen the bottle neck. Anything else is basically zero sum.   If the way society views men hinges in any way on the behaviour of some internet community, that community could be a bunch of saints and I'd still call it a loss.   What kind of attention is actually needed? Would trying to raise public awareness actually help? Is anyone in the relevant fields unaware of the issues? Are we trying to wrestle public focus?   Telling someone an issue needs more attention causes instant scepticism because you're trying to sell it in the market of ideas and most people have a limited budget.   People will accept it if it's given for free, people will have a conversation with you about anything.","human_ref_B":"You've got it the wrong way round. The only reason those groups get attention is because men's issues are usually not given any attention. The fact that such groups have any prominence at all is a symptom of people ignoring the underlying issues that lead to such groups forming.  The behaviors exhibited by such groups are not specific to men at all. Misogyny and the -pill-related lines of thought exist among women as well, but they never achieve any sort of general label because the drive towards fixing issues that women suffer from effectively insulates such behavior as well.  For instance, a man who \"expects\" to get a woman who fulfills a woman's traditional gender roles (eg. sex, housekeeping, bear kids, etc) is labeled as an incel, yet a woman who \"expects\" the same (eg. money, romance, emotional support, etc) has no counterpart. A natural consequence of women's gender roles facing much more criticism is that anyone who can be a target of that criticism is highlighted much more.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5498.0,"score_ratio":25.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7sacb","c_root_id_B":"he7ow4y","created_at_utc_A":1632574298,"created_at_utc_B":1632572442,"score_A":79,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"> comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective),   Why do you think it's a bogus issue?  It course there are forms of FGM that are lot more extreme.  But even forms that ARE biologically comparable (e.g. removal of clitoral hood only) are banned, while male circumcision is not.  This is called Type Ia FGM and it's still illegal in every western country.  The inability of the society aknowledge that genital mutilation of millions of male babies is a problem, shows me that the society is simply not ready to hear about Men's issues, and this has nothing to do with existing men's rights groups.","human_ref_B":"Men\u2019s issues often do stem from feminism. Feminists abusing Erin Pizzey forcing her leave her own domestic abuse shelter because she claimed that men face as much domestic abuse as women. Feminists lobbying to redefine rape to exclude forced penetration, which many states and the FBI ended up agreeing to.   The falsification of rape and sexual abuse statistics. They claim only 5% of cases result in a conviction for the accused, and that only 3% (it\u2019s 3-11% depending on which study you use) of rape cases are false, both statistics are accurate based on what we know. However feminists will claim that the 3-11% statistic is reason to assume that most people accused will be guilty because statistically very few can prove their innocence, meanwhile they\u2019ll also argue that the 5% of convictions is far too low and is evidence that the bar for a conviction is set too high. Realistically we don\u2019t have enough evidence for ~90% of cases because they allegedly happen in the privacy of a home thus making it a he said-she said case, or in a dark setting so sexual assaulters(?) can\u2019t be identified.  Bodily autonomy is a one way conversation. Everyone talks about the abortion laws in Texas (which will likely be removed at some point due to public pressure) yet nobody actually puts pressures on governments to illegal use circumcision in infants. Likewise nobody puts pressures on governments to legalise paternal abortion, removing any responsibilities a biological father may have towards any children they might have (if they don\u2019t decide if there\u2019s a baby, why do they become responsible?). Along the same lines of that point, feminists in France illegalised paternity tests without the mother\u2019s permission. Paternity fraud is a huge issue in France, men aren\u2019t even legally allowed to test to see if the child they are paying for is their\u2019s.   The whole women\u2019s suffrage issue is still talked about to this day too, as if men could vote for centuries and women have only just got the vote. In reality women got the right to vote just 10 years after men of the same age in the UK. And in the USA voting for men is still dependent on conscription to the draft. That little caveat was never included for women and at the time of getting the vote many women didn\u2019t even want it because it was originally going to include the same terms. That isn\u2019t equality.  And not to mention feminists are making it so women get more lenient punishments in court for the same crime - https:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-1311004\/amp\/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html  Feminism is not about equality.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1856.0,"score_ratio":3.95}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7sacb","c_root_id_B":"he7hhzf","created_at_utc_A":1632574298,"created_at_utc_B":1632567746,"score_A":79,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"> comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective),   Why do you think it's a bogus issue?  It course there are forms of FGM that are lot more extreme.  But even forms that ARE biologically comparable (e.g. removal of clitoral hood only) are banned, while male circumcision is not.  This is called Type Ia FGM and it's still illegal in every western country.  The inability of the society aknowledge that genital mutilation of millions of male babies is a problem, shows me that the society is simply not ready to hear about Men's issues, and this has nothing to do with existing men's rights groups.","human_ref_B":"Most normal people outside of reddit never heard of any of these groups.  Why would a bunch of nerds online complaining that they can't get dates have an effect on actual jurisprudence? Do you really think that is how the legal system operates, on the criteria of judging case law based on some annoyance factor?  The real reason these issues aren't addressed is because they are all separate things, each one the result of a myriad of complex societal factors that do not happen merely \"Because Men\", and it's just happenstance that they primarily effect men as a commonality.  I'll give you an example. There are actually more homeless women then men. But the majority of homeless women are fleeing domestic abuse, and because of that they have battered womens shelters, and because they can stay there they aren't counted as homeless.  Much less homeless men are fleeing domestic abuse, so they don't have battered men's shelters, etc.  So the problem of men's homelessness compared to women is an issue of how homeless is classified more than any issue between the two groups, and that doesn't even touch on the actual issues of homelessness itself.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6552.0,"score_ratio":6.0769230769}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7sacb","c_root_id_B":"he7mqwq","created_at_utc_A":1632574298,"created_at_utc_B":1632571177,"score_A":79,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective),   Why do you think it's a bogus issue?  It course there are forms of FGM that are lot more extreme.  But even forms that ARE biologically comparable (e.g. removal of clitoral hood only) are banned, while male circumcision is not.  This is called Type Ia FGM and it's still illegal in every western country.  The inability of the society aknowledge that genital mutilation of millions of male babies is a problem, shows me that the society is simply not ready to hear about Men's issues, and this has nothing to do with existing men's rights groups.","human_ref_B":"The reason you should change your view is their are female groups just like those male groups you mention. Radfems, female incels etc. so clearly the existence of these groups doesn\u2019t change the attention the underlying cause receives for females, so why should it change the attention men\u2019s issues receive?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3121.0,"score_ratio":11.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7sacb","c_root_id_B":"he7j8ik","created_at_utc_A":1632574298,"created_at_utc_B":1632568952,"score_A":79,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective),   Why do you think it's a bogus issue?  It course there are forms of FGM that are lot more extreme.  But even forms that ARE biologically comparable (e.g. removal of clitoral hood only) are banned, while male circumcision is not.  This is called Type Ia FGM and it's still illegal in every western country.  The inability of the society aknowledge that genital mutilation of millions of male babies is a problem, shows me that the society is simply not ready to hear about Men's issues, and this has nothing to do with existing men's rights groups.","human_ref_B":">there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc.  Before we look for a specific reason these issues aren't being addressed, I think it's probably best to zoom out a bit to think about how many issues there are that need more attention in general.   We're just not as efficient as we'd like to be at addressing problems.   If there's a major bottleneck that makes it hard to solve issues, you want to widen the bottle neck. Anything else is basically zero sum.   If the way society views men hinges in any way on the behaviour of some internet community, that community could be a bunch of saints and I'd still call it a loss.   What kind of attention is actually needed? Would trying to raise public awareness actually help? Is anyone in the relevant fields unaware of the issues? Are we trying to wrestle public focus?   Telling someone an issue needs more attention causes instant scepticism because you're trying to sell it in the market of ideas and most people have a limited budget.   People will accept it if it's given for free, people will have a conversation with you about anything.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5346.0,"score_ratio":13.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7so8x","c_root_id_B":"he7ow4y","created_at_utc_A":1632574503,"created_at_utc_B":1632572442,"score_A":44,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":">Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future)  Even if it is bogus in the US, it can be a real issue in countries that still use actual conscription with men having to waste time in the military (and potentially sent to fight wars without asking their consent).   In my opinion, conscription is one of the biggest and most blatant MRA issues as it is so obvious: A clear inequality in a law. Other issues (health, social norms etc.) it can be debated if they are truly examples of inequality, but when law says that one gender has to take part in the conscription and the other doesn't, then that's pretty damning.   I think you're just too America focused on this. You don't have the word the United States in your title.","human_ref_B":"Men\u2019s issues often do stem from feminism. Feminists abusing Erin Pizzey forcing her leave her own domestic abuse shelter because she claimed that men face as much domestic abuse as women. Feminists lobbying to redefine rape to exclude forced penetration, which many states and the FBI ended up agreeing to.   The falsification of rape and sexual abuse statistics. They claim only 5% of cases result in a conviction for the accused, and that only 3% (it\u2019s 3-11% depending on which study you use) of rape cases are false, both statistics are accurate based on what we know. However feminists will claim that the 3-11% statistic is reason to assume that most people accused will be guilty because statistically very few can prove their innocence, meanwhile they\u2019ll also argue that the 5% of convictions is far too low and is evidence that the bar for a conviction is set too high. Realistically we don\u2019t have enough evidence for ~90% of cases because they allegedly happen in the privacy of a home thus making it a he said-she said case, or in a dark setting so sexual assaulters(?) can\u2019t be identified.  Bodily autonomy is a one way conversation. Everyone talks about the abortion laws in Texas (which will likely be removed at some point due to public pressure) yet nobody actually puts pressures on governments to illegal use circumcision in infants. Likewise nobody puts pressures on governments to legalise paternal abortion, removing any responsibilities a biological father may have towards any children they might have (if they don\u2019t decide if there\u2019s a baby, why do they become responsible?). Along the same lines of that point, feminists in France illegalised paternity tests without the mother\u2019s permission. Paternity fraud is a huge issue in France, men aren\u2019t even legally allowed to test to see if the child they are paying for is their\u2019s.   The whole women\u2019s suffrage issue is still talked about to this day too, as if men could vote for centuries and women have only just got the vote. In reality women got the right to vote just 10 years after men of the same age in the UK. And in the USA voting for men is still dependent on conscription to the draft. That little caveat was never included for women and at the time of getting the vote many women didn\u2019t even want it because it was originally going to include the same terms. That isn\u2019t equality.  And not to mention feminists are making it so women get more lenient punishments in court for the same crime - https:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-1311004\/amp\/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html  Feminism is not about equality.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2061.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7hhzf","c_root_id_B":"he7so8x","created_at_utc_A":1632567746,"created_at_utc_B":1632574503,"score_A":13,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"Most normal people outside of reddit never heard of any of these groups.  Why would a bunch of nerds online complaining that they can't get dates have an effect on actual jurisprudence? Do you really think that is how the legal system operates, on the criteria of judging case law based on some annoyance factor?  The real reason these issues aren't addressed is because they are all separate things, each one the result of a myriad of complex societal factors that do not happen merely \"Because Men\", and it's just happenstance that they primarily effect men as a commonality.  I'll give you an example. There are actually more homeless women then men. But the majority of homeless women are fleeing domestic abuse, and because of that they have battered womens shelters, and because they can stay there they aren't counted as homeless.  Much less homeless men are fleeing domestic abuse, so they don't have battered men's shelters, etc.  So the problem of men's homelessness compared to women is an issue of how homeless is classified more than any issue between the two groups, and that doesn't even touch on the actual issues of homelessness itself.","human_ref_B":">Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future)  Even if it is bogus in the US, it can be a real issue in countries that still use actual conscription with men having to waste time in the military (and potentially sent to fight wars without asking their consent).   In my opinion, conscription is one of the biggest and most blatant MRA issues as it is so obvious: A clear inequality in a law. Other issues (health, social norms etc.) it can be debated if they are truly examples of inequality, but when law says that one gender has to take part in the conscription and the other doesn't, then that's pretty damning.   I think you're just too America focused on this. You don't have the word the United States in your title.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6757.0,"score_ratio":3.3846153846}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7mqwq","c_root_id_B":"he7so8x","created_at_utc_A":1632571177,"created_at_utc_B":1632574503,"score_A":7,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"The reason you should change your view is their are female groups just like those male groups you mention. Radfems, female incels etc. so clearly the existence of these groups doesn\u2019t change the attention the underlying cause receives for females, so why should it change the attention men\u2019s issues receive?","human_ref_B":">Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future)  Even if it is bogus in the US, it can be a real issue in countries that still use actual conscription with men having to waste time in the military (and potentially sent to fight wars without asking their consent).   In my opinion, conscription is one of the biggest and most blatant MRA issues as it is so obvious: A clear inequality in a law. Other issues (health, social norms etc.) it can be debated if they are truly examples of inequality, but when law says that one gender has to take part in the conscription and the other doesn't, then that's pretty damning.   I think you're just too America focused on this. You don't have the word the United States in your title.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3326.0,"score_ratio":6.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7j8ik","c_root_id_B":"he7so8x","created_at_utc_A":1632568952,"created_at_utc_B":1632574503,"score_A":6,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":">there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc.  Before we look for a specific reason these issues aren't being addressed, I think it's probably best to zoom out a bit to think about how many issues there are that need more attention in general.   We're just not as efficient as we'd like to be at addressing problems.   If there's a major bottleneck that makes it hard to solve issues, you want to widen the bottle neck. Anything else is basically zero sum.   If the way society views men hinges in any way on the behaviour of some internet community, that community could be a bunch of saints and I'd still call it a loss.   What kind of attention is actually needed? Would trying to raise public awareness actually help? Is anyone in the relevant fields unaware of the issues? Are we trying to wrestle public focus?   Telling someone an issue needs more attention causes instant scepticism because you're trying to sell it in the market of ideas and most people have a limited budget.   People will accept it if it's given for free, people will have a conversation with you about anything.","human_ref_B":">Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future)  Even if it is bogus in the US, it can be a real issue in countries that still use actual conscription with men having to waste time in the military (and potentially sent to fight wars without asking their consent).   In my opinion, conscription is one of the biggest and most blatant MRA issues as it is so obvious: A clear inequality in a law. Other issues (health, social norms etc.) it can be debated if they are truly examples of inequality, but when law says that one gender has to take part in the conscription and the other doesn't, then that's pretty damning.   I think you're just too America focused on this. You don't have the word the United States in your title.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5551.0,"score_ratio":7.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he81758","c_root_id_B":"he83l1h","created_at_utc_A":1632578713,"created_at_utc_B":1632579839,"score_A":25,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"Men's rights groups are no different than any other group, in that most of the people involved are perfectly reasonable and trying to get a problem addressed, and a few are crazy. What men are suffering from is that we portray those crazy ones as representative of the movement, but when you see a crazy \"kill all men\" feminist, we say \"That's ridiculous. Those people are extremely rare!\"  In short, we look for any reason we can to give feminists the benefit of doubt, but any reason we can to demonize anyone brave enough to say they're fighting for men.","human_ref_B":"The media (and feminists, it has to be said) deliberately take the most extreme groups, like Incels, and make them their spokespeople for men's rights. I would go so far as to say there is a conspiracy to suppress the men's right's movement, because it is political poison to the feminist movement.  If that sounds extreme, please keep in mind that avowed feminist Jess Phillips, an MP here in the UK, burst out laughing at the very idea that men's issues be discussed in Parliament on equal terms to women's issues. Her argument was, to paraphrase, \"we can discuss men's issues when all women's issues have been settled.\"  Given that she is a politician, and thus is in a position to enact legislation, I am going to take that to be the official feminist position - so long as there are women's issues, men's issues should not be considered. Since we will *never* resolve all women's issues, as doing so would make the feminist movement obsolete, this boils down to *men's issues will not be considered*.  Now you can argue this is an extreme and uncharitable reading of the situation based on one individual, but in 2015 students and staff alike demanded the University of York cancel an International Men's Day event because the organiser stated that men were underrepresented in certain areas, and that men's issues often go unnoticed or unresolved. This statement was backed up by data, by the way.  So feminists in political positions say we can't address men's issues because feminism comes first, and feminists in academia actively shut down attempts to achieve gender-equality when it favours men. By contrast, we do not see reciprocal actions - there has been no efforts to shut down international women's day, or to stop women's issues being raised in politics. Certainly not by men's rights activists, at any rate.  I'm starting to think the lack of attention to men's issues has nothing to do with men's rights activists.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1126.0,"score_ratio":1.64}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7ow4y","c_root_id_B":"he83l1h","created_at_utc_A":1632572442,"created_at_utc_B":1632579839,"score_A":20,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"Men\u2019s issues often do stem from feminism. Feminists abusing Erin Pizzey forcing her leave her own domestic abuse shelter because she claimed that men face as much domestic abuse as women. Feminists lobbying to redefine rape to exclude forced penetration, which many states and the FBI ended up agreeing to.   The falsification of rape and sexual abuse statistics. They claim only 5% of cases result in a conviction for the accused, and that only 3% (it\u2019s 3-11% depending on which study you use) of rape cases are false, both statistics are accurate based on what we know. However feminists will claim that the 3-11% statistic is reason to assume that most people accused will be guilty because statistically very few can prove their innocence, meanwhile they\u2019ll also argue that the 5% of convictions is far too low and is evidence that the bar for a conviction is set too high. Realistically we don\u2019t have enough evidence for ~90% of cases because they allegedly happen in the privacy of a home thus making it a he said-she said case, or in a dark setting so sexual assaulters(?) can\u2019t be identified.  Bodily autonomy is a one way conversation. Everyone talks about the abortion laws in Texas (which will likely be removed at some point due to public pressure) yet nobody actually puts pressures on governments to illegal use circumcision in infants. Likewise nobody puts pressures on governments to legalise paternal abortion, removing any responsibilities a biological father may have towards any children they might have (if they don\u2019t decide if there\u2019s a baby, why do they become responsible?). Along the same lines of that point, feminists in France illegalised paternity tests without the mother\u2019s permission. Paternity fraud is a huge issue in France, men aren\u2019t even legally allowed to test to see if the child they are paying for is their\u2019s.   The whole women\u2019s suffrage issue is still talked about to this day too, as if men could vote for centuries and women have only just got the vote. In reality women got the right to vote just 10 years after men of the same age in the UK. And in the USA voting for men is still dependent on conscription to the draft. That little caveat was never included for women and at the time of getting the vote many women didn\u2019t even want it because it was originally going to include the same terms. That isn\u2019t equality.  And not to mention feminists are making it so women get more lenient punishments in court for the same crime - https:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-1311004\/amp\/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html  Feminism is not about equality.","human_ref_B":"The media (and feminists, it has to be said) deliberately take the most extreme groups, like Incels, and make them their spokespeople for men's rights. I would go so far as to say there is a conspiracy to suppress the men's right's movement, because it is political poison to the feminist movement.  If that sounds extreme, please keep in mind that avowed feminist Jess Phillips, an MP here in the UK, burst out laughing at the very idea that men's issues be discussed in Parliament on equal terms to women's issues. Her argument was, to paraphrase, \"we can discuss men's issues when all women's issues have been settled.\"  Given that she is a politician, and thus is in a position to enact legislation, I am going to take that to be the official feminist position - so long as there are women's issues, men's issues should not be considered. Since we will *never* resolve all women's issues, as doing so would make the feminist movement obsolete, this boils down to *men's issues will not be considered*.  Now you can argue this is an extreme and uncharitable reading of the situation based on one individual, but in 2015 students and staff alike demanded the University of York cancel an International Men's Day event because the organiser stated that men were underrepresented in certain areas, and that men's issues often go unnoticed or unresolved. This statement was backed up by data, by the way.  So feminists in political positions say we can't address men's issues because feminism comes first, and feminists in academia actively shut down attempts to achieve gender-equality when it favours men. By contrast, we do not see reciprocal actions - there has been no efforts to shut down international women's day, or to stop women's issues being raised in politics. Certainly not by men's rights activists, at any rate.  I'm starting to think the lack of attention to men's issues has nothing to do with men's rights activists.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7397.0,"score_ratio":2.05}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7hhzf","c_root_id_B":"he83l1h","created_at_utc_A":1632567746,"created_at_utc_B":1632579839,"score_A":13,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"Most normal people outside of reddit never heard of any of these groups.  Why would a bunch of nerds online complaining that they can't get dates have an effect on actual jurisprudence? Do you really think that is how the legal system operates, on the criteria of judging case law based on some annoyance factor?  The real reason these issues aren't addressed is because they are all separate things, each one the result of a myriad of complex societal factors that do not happen merely \"Because Men\", and it's just happenstance that they primarily effect men as a commonality.  I'll give you an example. There are actually more homeless women then men. But the majority of homeless women are fleeing domestic abuse, and because of that they have battered womens shelters, and because they can stay there they aren't counted as homeless.  Much less homeless men are fleeing domestic abuse, so they don't have battered men's shelters, etc.  So the problem of men's homelessness compared to women is an issue of how homeless is classified more than any issue between the two groups, and that doesn't even touch on the actual issues of homelessness itself.","human_ref_B":"The media (and feminists, it has to be said) deliberately take the most extreme groups, like Incels, and make them their spokespeople for men's rights. I would go so far as to say there is a conspiracy to suppress the men's right's movement, because it is political poison to the feminist movement.  If that sounds extreme, please keep in mind that avowed feminist Jess Phillips, an MP here in the UK, burst out laughing at the very idea that men's issues be discussed in Parliament on equal terms to women's issues. Her argument was, to paraphrase, \"we can discuss men's issues when all women's issues have been settled.\"  Given that she is a politician, and thus is in a position to enact legislation, I am going to take that to be the official feminist position - so long as there are women's issues, men's issues should not be considered. Since we will *never* resolve all women's issues, as doing so would make the feminist movement obsolete, this boils down to *men's issues will not be considered*.  Now you can argue this is an extreme and uncharitable reading of the situation based on one individual, but in 2015 students and staff alike demanded the University of York cancel an International Men's Day event because the organiser stated that men were underrepresented in certain areas, and that men's issues often go unnoticed or unresolved. This statement was backed up by data, by the way.  So feminists in political positions say we can't address men's issues because feminism comes first, and feminists in academia actively shut down attempts to achieve gender-equality when it favours men. By contrast, we do not see reciprocal actions - there has been no efforts to shut down international women's day, or to stop women's issues being raised in politics. Certainly not by men's rights activists, at any rate.  I'm starting to think the lack of attention to men's issues has nothing to do with men's rights activists.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12093.0,"score_ratio":3.1538461538}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he83l1h","c_root_id_B":"he7mqwq","created_at_utc_A":1632579839,"created_at_utc_B":1632571177,"score_A":41,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The media (and feminists, it has to be said) deliberately take the most extreme groups, like Incels, and make them their spokespeople for men's rights. I would go so far as to say there is a conspiracy to suppress the men's right's movement, because it is political poison to the feminist movement.  If that sounds extreme, please keep in mind that avowed feminist Jess Phillips, an MP here in the UK, burst out laughing at the very idea that men's issues be discussed in Parliament on equal terms to women's issues. Her argument was, to paraphrase, \"we can discuss men's issues when all women's issues have been settled.\"  Given that she is a politician, and thus is in a position to enact legislation, I am going to take that to be the official feminist position - so long as there are women's issues, men's issues should not be considered. Since we will *never* resolve all women's issues, as doing so would make the feminist movement obsolete, this boils down to *men's issues will not be considered*.  Now you can argue this is an extreme and uncharitable reading of the situation based on one individual, but in 2015 students and staff alike demanded the University of York cancel an International Men's Day event because the organiser stated that men were underrepresented in certain areas, and that men's issues often go unnoticed or unresolved. This statement was backed up by data, by the way.  So feminists in political positions say we can't address men's issues because feminism comes first, and feminists in academia actively shut down attempts to achieve gender-equality when it favours men. By contrast, we do not see reciprocal actions - there has been no efforts to shut down international women's day, or to stop women's issues being raised in politics. Certainly not by men's rights activists, at any rate.  I'm starting to think the lack of attention to men's issues has nothing to do with men's rights activists.","human_ref_B":"The reason you should change your view is their are female groups just like those male groups you mention. Radfems, female incels etc. so clearly the existence of these groups doesn\u2019t change the attention the underlying cause receives for females, so why should it change the attention men\u2019s issues receive?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8662.0,"score_ratio":5.8571428571}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he83l1h","c_root_id_B":"he7j8ik","created_at_utc_A":1632579839,"created_at_utc_B":1632568952,"score_A":41,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The media (and feminists, it has to be said) deliberately take the most extreme groups, like Incels, and make them their spokespeople for men's rights. I would go so far as to say there is a conspiracy to suppress the men's right's movement, because it is political poison to the feminist movement.  If that sounds extreme, please keep in mind that avowed feminist Jess Phillips, an MP here in the UK, burst out laughing at the very idea that men's issues be discussed in Parliament on equal terms to women's issues. Her argument was, to paraphrase, \"we can discuss men's issues when all women's issues have been settled.\"  Given that she is a politician, and thus is in a position to enact legislation, I am going to take that to be the official feminist position - so long as there are women's issues, men's issues should not be considered. Since we will *never* resolve all women's issues, as doing so would make the feminist movement obsolete, this boils down to *men's issues will not be considered*.  Now you can argue this is an extreme and uncharitable reading of the situation based on one individual, but in 2015 students and staff alike demanded the University of York cancel an International Men's Day event because the organiser stated that men were underrepresented in certain areas, and that men's issues often go unnoticed or unresolved. This statement was backed up by data, by the way.  So feminists in political positions say we can't address men's issues because feminism comes first, and feminists in academia actively shut down attempts to achieve gender-equality when it favours men. By contrast, we do not see reciprocal actions - there has been no efforts to shut down international women's day, or to stop women's issues being raised in politics. Certainly not by men's rights activists, at any rate.  I'm starting to think the lack of attention to men's issues has nothing to do with men's rights activists.","human_ref_B":">there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc.  Before we look for a specific reason these issues aren't being addressed, I think it's probably best to zoom out a bit to think about how many issues there are that need more attention in general.   We're just not as efficient as we'd like to be at addressing problems.   If there's a major bottleneck that makes it hard to solve issues, you want to widen the bottle neck. Anything else is basically zero sum.   If the way society views men hinges in any way on the behaviour of some internet community, that community could be a bunch of saints and I'd still call it a loss.   What kind of attention is actually needed? Would trying to raise public awareness actually help? Is anyone in the relevant fields unaware of the issues? Are we trying to wrestle public focus?   Telling someone an issue needs more attention causes instant scepticism because you're trying to sell it in the market of ideas and most people have a limited budget.   People will accept it if it's given for free, people will have a conversation with you about anything.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10887.0,"score_ratio":6.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he81758","c_root_id_B":"he8gjgv","created_at_utc_A":1632578713,"created_at_utc_B":1632585760,"score_A":25,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"Men's rights groups are no different than any other group, in that most of the people involved are perfectly reasonable and trying to get a problem addressed, and a few are crazy. What men are suffering from is that we portray those crazy ones as representative of the movement, but when you see a crazy \"kill all men\" feminist, we say \"That's ridiculous. Those people are extremely rare!\"  In short, we look for any reason we can to give feminists the benefit of doubt, but any reason we can to demonize anyone brave enough to say they're fighting for men.","human_ref_B":"Hm, I'm going to try to disagree with your points without wading too deep into actually debating most of them, but we'll see.  > The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs.  Just want to start by saying I mostly agree here. There's one small exception, but...this probably isn't the thread for it.  &nbsp;  > They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  If someone genuinely believes that feminism has led to systemic issues against men, wouldn't it be important to point that out?  &nbsp;  > MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  In my experience, this is very, very untrue. It's an oft-repeated *claim* about MRAs, but the reality is that many of the issues MRAs complain about have simple solutions: ban routine infant circumcision, update the definition of rape, apportion resources more equitably for homelessness and DV, etc.  And before someone says, \"well then actually *do* those things!\"...many men do try.  &nbsp;  > Focus on bogus issues...  Calling conscription bogus because we aren't in the thick of a draft is like telling a woman who isn't pregnant (or can't bear children) that she has no reason to fight for abortion rights. The draft doesn't matter until suddenly it does, and by then it's too late.  The Western perception of FGM fixates on the most extreme cases. I can speculate why, but that's a whole thread's worth of debates in itself. Suffice to say that there is a large spectrum of FGM procedures practiced worldwide, some of them *are* relatively comparable to male circumcision, and regardless, protections for the underlying human right should not be gendered.  &nbsp;  > Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  Also debatable, and probably pointlessly. Much of what MRAs call misandry has been normalized or outright ignored. There's plenty of hate to go around, and I don't know how we'd begin to quantify it.  &nbsp;  > Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies  Even the controversial mensrights sub found that its users were more left-wing than right-wing (although granted, that was before the mgtow ban that sent a bunch of them to the sub). There's also LeftWingMaleAdvocates.  In practice, progressivism has done a lot more to dismiss and minimize men's issues than address them, so many men are understandably wary of contemporary progressivism. That isn't an endorsement of conservatism: MRAs are also quick to decry the gender traditionalism that is often enforced by tradcons.  &nbsp;  Anyway, now that I've fulfilled the stereotype of a men's advocate who writes way too much online...there ya go. Let me know what you think.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7047.0,"score_ratio":1.24}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he8gjgv","c_root_id_B":"he7ow4y","created_at_utc_A":1632585760,"created_at_utc_B":1632572442,"score_A":31,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Hm, I'm going to try to disagree with your points without wading too deep into actually debating most of them, but we'll see.  > The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs.  Just want to start by saying I mostly agree here. There's one small exception, but...this probably isn't the thread for it.  &nbsp;  > They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  If someone genuinely believes that feminism has led to systemic issues against men, wouldn't it be important to point that out?  &nbsp;  > MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  In my experience, this is very, very untrue. It's an oft-repeated *claim* about MRAs, but the reality is that many of the issues MRAs complain about have simple solutions: ban routine infant circumcision, update the definition of rape, apportion resources more equitably for homelessness and DV, etc.  And before someone says, \"well then actually *do* those things!\"...many men do try.  &nbsp;  > Focus on bogus issues...  Calling conscription bogus because we aren't in the thick of a draft is like telling a woman who isn't pregnant (or can't bear children) that she has no reason to fight for abortion rights. The draft doesn't matter until suddenly it does, and by then it's too late.  The Western perception of FGM fixates on the most extreme cases. I can speculate why, but that's a whole thread's worth of debates in itself. Suffice to say that there is a large spectrum of FGM procedures practiced worldwide, some of them *are* relatively comparable to male circumcision, and regardless, protections for the underlying human right should not be gendered.  &nbsp;  > Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  Also debatable, and probably pointlessly. Much of what MRAs call misandry has been normalized or outright ignored. There's plenty of hate to go around, and I don't know how we'd begin to quantify it.  &nbsp;  > Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies  Even the controversial mensrights sub found that its users were more left-wing than right-wing (although granted, that was before the mgtow ban that sent a bunch of them to the sub). There's also LeftWingMaleAdvocates.  In practice, progressivism has done a lot more to dismiss and minimize men's issues than address them, so many men are understandably wary of contemporary progressivism. That isn't an endorsement of conservatism: MRAs are also quick to decry the gender traditionalism that is often enforced by tradcons.  &nbsp;  Anyway, now that I've fulfilled the stereotype of a men's advocate who writes way too much online...there ya go. Let me know what you think.","human_ref_B":"Men\u2019s issues often do stem from feminism. Feminists abusing Erin Pizzey forcing her leave her own domestic abuse shelter because she claimed that men face as much domestic abuse as women. Feminists lobbying to redefine rape to exclude forced penetration, which many states and the FBI ended up agreeing to.   The falsification of rape and sexual abuse statistics. They claim only 5% of cases result in a conviction for the accused, and that only 3% (it\u2019s 3-11% depending on which study you use) of rape cases are false, both statistics are accurate based on what we know. However feminists will claim that the 3-11% statistic is reason to assume that most people accused will be guilty because statistically very few can prove their innocence, meanwhile they\u2019ll also argue that the 5% of convictions is far too low and is evidence that the bar for a conviction is set too high. Realistically we don\u2019t have enough evidence for ~90% of cases because they allegedly happen in the privacy of a home thus making it a he said-she said case, or in a dark setting so sexual assaulters(?) can\u2019t be identified.  Bodily autonomy is a one way conversation. Everyone talks about the abortion laws in Texas (which will likely be removed at some point due to public pressure) yet nobody actually puts pressures on governments to illegal use circumcision in infants. Likewise nobody puts pressures on governments to legalise paternal abortion, removing any responsibilities a biological father may have towards any children they might have (if they don\u2019t decide if there\u2019s a baby, why do they become responsible?). Along the same lines of that point, feminists in France illegalised paternity tests without the mother\u2019s permission. Paternity fraud is a huge issue in France, men aren\u2019t even legally allowed to test to see if the child they are paying for is their\u2019s.   The whole women\u2019s suffrage issue is still talked about to this day too, as if men could vote for centuries and women have only just got the vote. In reality women got the right to vote just 10 years after men of the same age in the UK. And in the USA voting for men is still dependent on conscription to the draft. That little caveat was never included for women and at the time of getting the vote many women didn\u2019t even want it because it was originally going to include the same terms. That isn\u2019t equality.  And not to mention feminists are making it so women get more lenient punishments in court for the same crime - https:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-1311004\/amp\/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html  Feminism is not about equality.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13318.0,"score_ratio":1.55}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he8gjgv","c_root_id_B":"he83vi9","created_at_utc_A":1632585760,"created_at_utc_B":1632579974,"score_A":31,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Hm, I'm going to try to disagree with your points without wading too deep into actually debating most of them, but we'll see.  > The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs.  Just want to start by saying I mostly agree here. There's one small exception, but...this probably isn't the thread for it.  &nbsp;  > They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  If someone genuinely believes that feminism has led to systemic issues against men, wouldn't it be important to point that out?  &nbsp;  > MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  In my experience, this is very, very untrue. It's an oft-repeated *claim* about MRAs, but the reality is that many of the issues MRAs complain about have simple solutions: ban routine infant circumcision, update the definition of rape, apportion resources more equitably for homelessness and DV, etc.  And before someone says, \"well then actually *do* those things!\"...many men do try.  &nbsp;  > Focus on bogus issues...  Calling conscription bogus because we aren't in the thick of a draft is like telling a woman who isn't pregnant (or can't bear children) that she has no reason to fight for abortion rights. The draft doesn't matter until suddenly it does, and by then it's too late.  The Western perception of FGM fixates on the most extreme cases. I can speculate why, but that's a whole thread's worth of debates in itself. Suffice to say that there is a large spectrum of FGM procedures practiced worldwide, some of them *are* relatively comparable to male circumcision, and regardless, protections for the underlying human right should not be gendered.  &nbsp;  > Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  Also debatable, and probably pointlessly. Much of what MRAs call misandry has been normalized or outright ignored. There's plenty of hate to go around, and I don't know how we'd begin to quantify it.  &nbsp;  > Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies  Even the controversial mensrights sub found that its users were more left-wing than right-wing (although granted, that was before the mgtow ban that sent a bunch of them to the sub). There's also LeftWingMaleAdvocates.  In practice, progressivism has done a lot more to dismiss and minimize men's issues than address them, so many men are understandably wary of contemporary progressivism. That isn't an endorsement of conservatism: MRAs are also quick to decry the gender traditionalism that is often enforced by tradcons.  &nbsp;  Anyway, now that I've fulfilled the stereotype of a men's advocate who writes way too much online...there ya go. Let me know what you think.","human_ref_B":"Any feminist worth his\/her salt understands that patriarchal structures hurt men too. We actually do care that men are pressured to suppress their emotions and any sign of vulnerability, are forced to risk their lives where conscription does exist (for instance, in South Korea), bear the economic brunt of family provision, are punished\/regarded as pedophiles for taking care of or liking children, are excluded from conversations about rape and abuse and suffer greater stigma for talking about it.  Kate Mann talks about it in Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, Elizabeth Warren addresses these issues in The Two Income Trap.  Yet there are a lot of feminists out there who aren't worth their salt, who are clearly taking out the pain they've experienced due to some men on all men, and unfortunately, these assholes are loud, and the media loves crazy more than it loves rationality. And I think that's why men feel safer addressing these concerns in the context of men's rights than within the context of feminism. I also think the same thing happens here-- the most extreme views are the loudest and get spread more than the more reasonable views.  When I encounter someone who expresses sympathy for the men's rights movement, the first thing I say is that we probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I don't want to say I'm a humanist instead of a feminist, because to do that is to let the assholes take control of the word \"feminism\". Similarly, I see no need for a men's rights advocate to suddenly call himself a feminist. I really think the most rational members of feminists and men's rights advocates need to establish a common ground and have a healthier discourse with each other.  As for incels, I got nothing for ya. Men's Right's Advocates aren't famous for going on killing sprees that I know of.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5786.0,"score_ratio":1.8235294118}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he8gjgv","c_root_id_B":"he7hhzf","created_at_utc_A":1632585760,"created_at_utc_B":1632567746,"score_A":31,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Hm, I'm going to try to disagree with your points without wading too deep into actually debating most of them, but we'll see.  > The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs.  Just want to start by saying I mostly agree here. There's one small exception, but...this probably isn't the thread for it.  &nbsp;  > They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  If someone genuinely believes that feminism has led to systemic issues against men, wouldn't it be important to point that out?  &nbsp;  > MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  In my experience, this is very, very untrue. It's an oft-repeated *claim* about MRAs, but the reality is that many of the issues MRAs complain about have simple solutions: ban routine infant circumcision, update the definition of rape, apportion resources more equitably for homelessness and DV, etc.  And before someone says, \"well then actually *do* those things!\"...many men do try.  &nbsp;  > Focus on bogus issues...  Calling conscription bogus because we aren't in the thick of a draft is like telling a woman who isn't pregnant (or can't bear children) that she has no reason to fight for abortion rights. The draft doesn't matter until suddenly it does, and by then it's too late.  The Western perception of FGM fixates on the most extreme cases. I can speculate why, but that's a whole thread's worth of debates in itself. Suffice to say that there is a large spectrum of FGM procedures practiced worldwide, some of them *are* relatively comparable to male circumcision, and regardless, protections for the underlying human right should not be gendered.  &nbsp;  > Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  Also debatable, and probably pointlessly. Much of what MRAs call misandry has been normalized or outright ignored. There's plenty of hate to go around, and I don't know how we'd begin to quantify it.  &nbsp;  > Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies  Even the controversial mensrights sub found that its users were more left-wing than right-wing (although granted, that was before the mgtow ban that sent a bunch of them to the sub). There's also LeftWingMaleAdvocates.  In practice, progressivism has done a lot more to dismiss and minimize men's issues than address them, so many men are understandably wary of contemporary progressivism. That isn't an endorsement of conservatism: MRAs are also quick to decry the gender traditionalism that is often enforced by tradcons.  &nbsp;  Anyway, now that I've fulfilled the stereotype of a men's advocate who writes way too much online...there ya go. Let me know what you think.","human_ref_B":"Most normal people outside of reddit never heard of any of these groups.  Why would a bunch of nerds online complaining that they can't get dates have an effect on actual jurisprudence? Do you really think that is how the legal system operates, on the criteria of judging case law based on some annoyance factor?  The real reason these issues aren't addressed is because they are all separate things, each one the result of a myriad of complex societal factors that do not happen merely \"Because Men\", and it's just happenstance that they primarily effect men as a commonality.  I'll give you an example. There are actually more homeless women then men. But the majority of homeless women are fleeing domestic abuse, and because of that they have battered womens shelters, and because they can stay there they aren't counted as homeless.  Much less homeless men are fleeing domestic abuse, so they don't have battered men's shelters, etc.  So the problem of men's homelessness compared to women is an issue of how homeless is classified more than any issue between the two groups, and that doesn't even touch on the actual issues of homelessness itself.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18014.0,"score_ratio":2.3846153846}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7mqwq","c_root_id_B":"he8gjgv","created_at_utc_A":1632571177,"created_at_utc_B":1632585760,"score_A":7,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"The reason you should change your view is their are female groups just like those male groups you mention. Radfems, female incels etc. so clearly the existence of these groups doesn\u2019t change the attention the underlying cause receives for females, so why should it change the attention men\u2019s issues receive?","human_ref_B":"Hm, I'm going to try to disagree with your points without wading too deep into actually debating most of them, but we'll see.  > The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs.  Just want to start by saying I mostly agree here. There's one small exception, but...this probably isn't the thread for it.  &nbsp;  > They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  If someone genuinely believes that feminism has led to systemic issues against men, wouldn't it be important to point that out?  &nbsp;  > MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  In my experience, this is very, very untrue. It's an oft-repeated *claim* about MRAs, but the reality is that many of the issues MRAs complain about have simple solutions: ban routine infant circumcision, update the definition of rape, apportion resources more equitably for homelessness and DV, etc.  And before someone says, \"well then actually *do* those things!\"...many men do try.  &nbsp;  > Focus on bogus issues...  Calling conscription bogus because we aren't in the thick of a draft is like telling a woman who isn't pregnant (or can't bear children) that she has no reason to fight for abortion rights. The draft doesn't matter until suddenly it does, and by then it's too late.  The Western perception of FGM fixates on the most extreme cases. I can speculate why, but that's a whole thread's worth of debates in itself. Suffice to say that there is a large spectrum of FGM procedures practiced worldwide, some of them *are* relatively comparable to male circumcision, and regardless, protections for the underlying human right should not be gendered.  &nbsp;  > Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  Also debatable, and probably pointlessly. Much of what MRAs call misandry has been normalized or outright ignored. There's plenty of hate to go around, and I don't know how we'd begin to quantify it.  &nbsp;  > Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies  Even the controversial mensrights sub found that its users were more left-wing than right-wing (although granted, that was before the mgtow ban that sent a bunch of them to the sub). There's also LeftWingMaleAdvocates.  In practice, progressivism has done a lot more to dismiss and minimize men's issues than address them, so many men are understandably wary of contemporary progressivism. That isn't an endorsement of conservatism: MRAs are also quick to decry the gender traditionalism that is often enforced by tradcons.  &nbsp;  Anyway, now that I've fulfilled the stereotype of a men's advocate who writes way too much online...there ya go. Let me know what you think.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14583.0,"score_ratio":4.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he8gjgv","c_root_id_B":"he84jlw","created_at_utc_A":1632585760,"created_at_utc_B":1632580290,"score_A":31,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Hm, I'm going to try to disagree with your points without wading too deep into actually debating most of them, but we'll see.  > The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs.  Just want to start by saying I mostly agree here. There's one small exception, but...this probably isn't the thread for it.  &nbsp;  > They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  If someone genuinely believes that feminism has led to systemic issues against men, wouldn't it be important to point that out?  &nbsp;  > MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  In my experience, this is very, very untrue. It's an oft-repeated *claim* about MRAs, but the reality is that many of the issues MRAs complain about have simple solutions: ban routine infant circumcision, update the definition of rape, apportion resources more equitably for homelessness and DV, etc.  And before someone says, \"well then actually *do* those things!\"...many men do try.  &nbsp;  > Focus on bogus issues...  Calling conscription bogus because we aren't in the thick of a draft is like telling a woman who isn't pregnant (or can't bear children) that she has no reason to fight for abortion rights. The draft doesn't matter until suddenly it does, and by then it's too late.  The Western perception of FGM fixates on the most extreme cases. I can speculate why, but that's a whole thread's worth of debates in itself. Suffice to say that there is a large spectrum of FGM procedures practiced worldwide, some of them *are* relatively comparable to male circumcision, and regardless, protections for the underlying human right should not be gendered.  &nbsp;  > Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  Also debatable, and probably pointlessly. Much of what MRAs call misandry has been normalized or outright ignored. There's plenty of hate to go around, and I don't know how we'd begin to quantify it.  &nbsp;  > Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies  Even the controversial mensrights sub found that its users were more left-wing than right-wing (although granted, that was before the mgtow ban that sent a bunch of them to the sub). There's also LeftWingMaleAdvocates.  In practice, progressivism has done a lot more to dismiss and minimize men's issues than address them, so many men are understandably wary of contemporary progressivism. That isn't an endorsement of conservatism: MRAs are also quick to decry the gender traditionalism that is often enforced by tradcons.  &nbsp;  Anyway, now that I've fulfilled the stereotype of a men's advocate who writes way too much online...there ya go. Let me know what you think.","human_ref_B":"It seems that your opinion is that ideological groups should lose legitimacy if, and only if, a nonzero number of violent acts are perpetrated by a member of that ideology. Is that correct?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5470.0,"score_ratio":3.875}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he8gjgv","c_root_id_B":"he7j8ik","created_at_utc_A":1632585760,"created_at_utc_B":1632568952,"score_A":31,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Hm, I'm going to try to disagree with your points without wading too deep into actually debating most of them, but we'll see.  > The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs.  Just want to start by saying I mostly agree here. There's one small exception, but...this probably isn't the thread for it.  &nbsp;  > They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  If someone genuinely believes that feminism has led to systemic issues against men, wouldn't it be important to point that out?  &nbsp;  > MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  In my experience, this is very, very untrue. It's an oft-repeated *claim* about MRAs, but the reality is that many of the issues MRAs complain about have simple solutions: ban routine infant circumcision, update the definition of rape, apportion resources more equitably for homelessness and DV, etc.  And before someone says, \"well then actually *do* those things!\"...many men do try.  &nbsp;  > Focus on bogus issues...  Calling conscription bogus because we aren't in the thick of a draft is like telling a woman who isn't pregnant (or can't bear children) that she has no reason to fight for abortion rights. The draft doesn't matter until suddenly it does, and by then it's too late.  The Western perception of FGM fixates on the most extreme cases. I can speculate why, but that's a whole thread's worth of debates in itself. Suffice to say that there is a large spectrum of FGM procedures practiced worldwide, some of them *are* relatively comparable to male circumcision, and regardless, protections for the underlying human right should not be gendered.  &nbsp;  > Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  Also debatable, and probably pointlessly. Much of what MRAs call misandry has been normalized or outright ignored. There's plenty of hate to go around, and I don't know how we'd begin to quantify it.  &nbsp;  > Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies  Even the controversial mensrights sub found that its users were more left-wing than right-wing (although granted, that was before the mgtow ban that sent a bunch of them to the sub). There's also LeftWingMaleAdvocates.  In practice, progressivism has done a lot more to dismiss and minimize men's issues than address them, so many men are understandably wary of contemporary progressivism. That isn't an endorsement of conservatism: MRAs are also quick to decry the gender traditionalism that is often enforced by tradcons.  &nbsp;  Anyway, now that I've fulfilled the stereotype of a men's advocate who writes way too much online...there ya go. Let me know what you think.","human_ref_B":">there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc.  Before we look for a specific reason these issues aren't being addressed, I think it's probably best to zoom out a bit to think about how many issues there are that need more attention in general.   We're just not as efficient as we'd like to be at addressing problems.   If there's a major bottleneck that makes it hard to solve issues, you want to widen the bottle neck. Anything else is basically zero sum.   If the way society views men hinges in any way on the behaviour of some internet community, that community could be a bunch of saints and I'd still call it a loss.   What kind of attention is actually needed? Would trying to raise public awareness actually help? Is anyone in the relevant fields unaware of the issues? Are we trying to wrestle public focus?   Telling someone an issue needs more attention causes instant scepticism because you're trying to sell it in the market of ideas and most people have a limited budget.   People will accept it if it's given for free, people will have a conversation with you about anything.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16808.0,"score_ratio":5.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7ow4y","c_root_id_B":"he81758","created_at_utc_A":1632572442,"created_at_utc_B":1632578713,"score_A":20,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Men\u2019s issues often do stem from feminism. Feminists abusing Erin Pizzey forcing her leave her own domestic abuse shelter because she claimed that men face as much domestic abuse as women. Feminists lobbying to redefine rape to exclude forced penetration, which many states and the FBI ended up agreeing to.   The falsification of rape and sexual abuse statistics. They claim only 5% of cases result in a conviction for the accused, and that only 3% (it\u2019s 3-11% depending on which study you use) of rape cases are false, both statistics are accurate based on what we know. However feminists will claim that the 3-11% statistic is reason to assume that most people accused will be guilty because statistically very few can prove their innocence, meanwhile they\u2019ll also argue that the 5% of convictions is far too low and is evidence that the bar for a conviction is set too high. Realistically we don\u2019t have enough evidence for ~90% of cases because they allegedly happen in the privacy of a home thus making it a he said-she said case, or in a dark setting so sexual assaulters(?) can\u2019t be identified.  Bodily autonomy is a one way conversation. Everyone talks about the abortion laws in Texas (which will likely be removed at some point due to public pressure) yet nobody actually puts pressures on governments to illegal use circumcision in infants. Likewise nobody puts pressures on governments to legalise paternal abortion, removing any responsibilities a biological father may have towards any children they might have (if they don\u2019t decide if there\u2019s a baby, why do they become responsible?). Along the same lines of that point, feminists in France illegalised paternity tests without the mother\u2019s permission. Paternity fraud is a huge issue in France, men aren\u2019t even legally allowed to test to see if the child they are paying for is their\u2019s.   The whole women\u2019s suffrage issue is still talked about to this day too, as if men could vote for centuries and women have only just got the vote. In reality women got the right to vote just 10 years after men of the same age in the UK. And in the USA voting for men is still dependent on conscription to the draft. That little caveat was never included for women and at the time of getting the vote many women didn\u2019t even want it because it was originally going to include the same terms. That isn\u2019t equality.  And not to mention feminists are making it so women get more lenient punishments in court for the same crime - https:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-1311004\/amp\/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html  Feminism is not about equality.","human_ref_B":"Men's rights groups are no different than any other group, in that most of the people involved are perfectly reasonable and trying to get a problem addressed, and a few are crazy. What men are suffering from is that we portray those crazy ones as representative of the movement, but when you see a crazy \"kill all men\" feminist, we say \"That's ridiculous. Those people are extremely rare!\"  In short, we look for any reason we can to give feminists the benefit of doubt, but any reason we can to demonize anyone brave enough to say they're fighting for men.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6271.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he81758","c_root_id_B":"he7hhzf","created_at_utc_A":1632578713,"created_at_utc_B":1632567746,"score_A":25,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Men's rights groups are no different than any other group, in that most of the people involved are perfectly reasonable and trying to get a problem addressed, and a few are crazy. What men are suffering from is that we portray those crazy ones as representative of the movement, but when you see a crazy \"kill all men\" feminist, we say \"That's ridiculous. Those people are extremely rare!\"  In short, we look for any reason we can to give feminists the benefit of doubt, but any reason we can to demonize anyone brave enough to say they're fighting for men.","human_ref_B":"Most normal people outside of reddit never heard of any of these groups.  Why would a bunch of nerds online complaining that they can't get dates have an effect on actual jurisprudence? Do you really think that is how the legal system operates, on the criteria of judging case law based on some annoyance factor?  The real reason these issues aren't addressed is because they are all separate things, each one the result of a myriad of complex societal factors that do not happen merely \"Because Men\", and it's just happenstance that they primarily effect men as a commonality.  I'll give you an example. There are actually more homeless women then men. But the majority of homeless women are fleeing domestic abuse, and because of that they have battered womens shelters, and because they can stay there they aren't counted as homeless.  Much less homeless men are fleeing domestic abuse, so they don't have battered men's shelters, etc.  So the problem of men's homelessness compared to women is an issue of how homeless is classified more than any issue between the two groups, and that doesn't even touch on the actual issues of homelessness itself.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10967.0,"score_ratio":1.9230769231}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7mqwq","c_root_id_B":"he81758","created_at_utc_A":1632571177,"created_at_utc_B":1632578713,"score_A":7,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"The reason you should change your view is their are female groups just like those male groups you mention. Radfems, female incels etc. so clearly the existence of these groups doesn\u2019t change the attention the underlying cause receives for females, so why should it change the attention men\u2019s issues receive?","human_ref_B":"Men's rights groups are no different than any other group, in that most of the people involved are perfectly reasonable and trying to get a problem addressed, and a few are crazy. What men are suffering from is that we portray those crazy ones as representative of the movement, but when you see a crazy \"kill all men\" feminist, we say \"That's ridiculous. Those people are extremely rare!\"  In short, we look for any reason we can to give feminists the benefit of doubt, but any reason we can to demonize anyone brave enough to say they're fighting for men.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7536.0,"score_ratio":3.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he81758","c_root_id_B":"he7j8ik","created_at_utc_A":1632578713,"created_at_utc_B":1632568952,"score_A":25,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Men's rights groups are no different than any other group, in that most of the people involved are perfectly reasonable and trying to get a problem addressed, and a few are crazy. What men are suffering from is that we portray those crazy ones as representative of the movement, but when you see a crazy \"kill all men\" feminist, we say \"That's ridiculous. Those people are extremely rare!\"  In short, we look for any reason we can to give feminists the benefit of doubt, but any reason we can to demonize anyone brave enough to say they're fighting for men.","human_ref_B":">there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc.  Before we look for a specific reason these issues aren't being addressed, I think it's probably best to zoom out a bit to think about how many issues there are that need more attention in general.   We're just not as efficient as we'd like to be at addressing problems.   If there's a major bottleneck that makes it hard to solve issues, you want to widen the bottle neck. Anything else is basically zero sum.   If the way society views men hinges in any way on the behaviour of some internet community, that community could be a bunch of saints and I'd still call it a loss.   What kind of attention is actually needed? Would trying to raise public awareness actually help? Is anyone in the relevant fields unaware of the issues? Are we trying to wrestle public focus?   Telling someone an issue needs more attention causes instant scepticism because you're trying to sell it in the market of ideas and most people have a limited budget.   People will accept it if it's given for free, people will have a conversation with you about anything.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9761.0,"score_ratio":4.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7hhzf","c_root_id_B":"he7ow4y","created_at_utc_A":1632567746,"created_at_utc_B":1632572442,"score_A":13,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Most normal people outside of reddit never heard of any of these groups.  Why would a bunch of nerds online complaining that they can't get dates have an effect on actual jurisprudence? Do you really think that is how the legal system operates, on the criteria of judging case law based on some annoyance factor?  The real reason these issues aren't addressed is because they are all separate things, each one the result of a myriad of complex societal factors that do not happen merely \"Because Men\", and it's just happenstance that they primarily effect men as a commonality.  I'll give you an example. There are actually more homeless women then men. But the majority of homeless women are fleeing domestic abuse, and because of that they have battered womens shelters, and because they can stay there they aren't counted as homeless.  Much less homeless men are fleeing domestic abuse, so they don't have battered men's shelters, etc.  So the problem of men's homelessness compared to women is an issue of how homeless is classified more than any issue between the two groups, and that doesn't even touch on the actual issues of homelessness itself.","human_ref_B":"Men\u2019s issues often do stem from feminism. Feminists abusing Erin Pizzey forcing her leave her own domestic abuse shelter because she claimed that men face as much domestic abuse as women. Feminists lobbying to redefine rape to exclude forced penetration, which many states and the FBI ended up agreeing to.   The falsification of rape and sexual abuse statistics. They claim only 5% of cases result in a conviction for the accused, and that only 3% (it\u2019s 3-11% depending on which study you use) of rape cases are false, both statistics are accurate based on what we know. However feminists will claim that the 3-11% statistic is reason to assume that most people accused will be guilty because statistically very few can prove their innocence, meanwhile they\u2019ll also argue that the 5% of convictions is far too low and is evidence that the bar for a conviction is set too high. Realistically we don\u2019t have enough evidence for ~90% of cases because they allegedly happen in the privacy of a home thus making it a he said-she said case, or in a dark setting so sexual assaulters(?) can\u2019t be identified.  Bodily autonomy is a one way conversation. Everyone talks about the abortion laws in Texas (which will likely be removed at some point due to public pressure) yet nobody actually puts pressures on governments to illegal use circumcision in infants. Likewise nobody puts pressures on governments to legalise paternal abortion, removing any responsibilities a biological father may have towards any children they might have (if they don\u2019t decide if there\u2019s a baby, why do they become responsible?). Along the same lines of that point, feminists in France illegalised paternity tests without the mother\u2019s permission. Paternity fraud is a huge issue in France, men aren\u2019t even legally allowed to test to see if the child they are paying for is their\u2019s.   The whole women\u2019s suffrage issue is still talked about to this day too, as if men could vote for centuries and women have only just got the vote. In reality women got the right to vote just 10 years after men of the same age in the UK. And in the USA voting for men is still dependent on conscription to the draft. That little caveat was never included for women and at the time of getting the vote many women didn\u2019t even want it because it was originally going to include the same terms. That isn\u2019t equality.  And not to mention feminists are making it so women get more lenient punishments in court for the same crime - https:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-1311004\/amp\/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html  Feminism is not about equality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4696.0,"score_ratio":1.5384615385}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7ow4y","c_root_id_B":"he7mqwq","created_at_utc_A":1632572442,"created_at_utc_B":1632571177,"score_A":20,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Men\u2019s issues often do stem from feminism. Feminists abusing Erin Pizzey forcing her leave her own domestic abuse shelter because she claimed that men face as much domestic abuse as women. Feminists lobbying to redefine rape to exclude forced penetration, which many states and the FBI ended up agreeing to.   The falsification of rape and sexual abuse statistics. They claim only 5% of cases result in a conviction for the accused, and that only 3% (it\u2019s 3-11% depending on which study you use) of rape cases are false, both statistics are accurate based on what we know. However feminists will claim that the 3-11% statistic is reason to assume that most people accused will be guilty because statistically very few can prove their innocence, meanwhile they\u2019ll also argue that the 5% of convictions is far too low and is evidence that the bar for a conviction is set too high. Realistically we don\u2019t have enough evidence for ~90% of cases because they allegedly happen in the privacy of a home thus making it a he said-she said case, or in a dark setting so sexual assaulters(?) can\u2019t be identified.  Bodily autonomy is a one way conversation. Everyone talks about the abortion laws in Texas (which will likely be removed at some point due to public pressure) yet nobody actually puts pressures on governments to illegal use circumcision in infants. Likewise nobody puts pressures on governments to legalise paternal abortion, removing any responsibilities a biological father may have towards any children they might have (if they don\u2019t decide if there\u2019s a baby, why do they become responsible?). Along the same lines of that point, feminists in France illegalised paternity tests without the mother\u2019s permission. Paternity fraud is a huge issue in France, men aren\u2019t even legally allowed to test to see if the child they are paying for is their\u2019s.   The whole women\u2019s suffrage issue is still talked about to this day too, as if men could vote for centuries and women have only just got the vote. In reality women got the right to vote just 10 years after men of the same age in the UK. And in the USA voting for men is still dependent on conscription to the draft. That little caveat was never included for women and at the time of getting the vote many women didn\u2019t even want it because it was originally going to include the same terms. That isn\u2019t equality.  And not to mention feminists are making it so women get more lenient punishments in court for the same crime - https:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-1311004\/amp\/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html  Feminism is not about equality.","human_ref_B":"The reason you should change your view is their are female groups just like those male groups you mention. Radfems, female incels etc. so clearly the existence of these groups doesn\u2019t change the attention the underlying cause receives for females, so why should it change the attention men\u2019s issues receive?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1265.0,"score_ratio":2.8571428571}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7ow4y","c_root_id_B":"he7j8ik","created_at_utc_A":1632572442,"created_at_utc_B":1632568952,"score_A":20,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Men\u2019s issues often do stem from feminism. Feminists abusing Erin Pizzey forcing her leave her own domestic abuse shelter because she claimed that men face as much domestic abuse as women. Feminists lobbying to redefine rape to exclude forced penetration, which many states and the FBI ended up agreeing to.   The falsification of rape and sexual abuse statistics. They claim only 5% of cases result in a conviction for the accused, and that only 3% (it\u2019s 3-11% depending on which study you use) of rape cases are false, both statistics are accurate based on what we know. However feminists will claim that the 3-11% statistic is reason to assume that most people accused will be guilty because statistically very few can prove their innocence, meanwhile they\u2019ll also argue that the 5% of convictions is far too low and is evidence that the bar for a conviction is set too high. Realistically we don\u2019t have enough evidence for ~90% of cases because they allegedly happen in the privacy of a home thus making it a he said-she said case, or in a dark setting so sexual assaulters(?) can\u2019t be identified.  Bodily autonomy is a one way conversation. Everyone talks about the abortion laws in Texas (which will likely be removed at some point due to public pressure) yet nobody actually puts pressures on governments to illegal use circumcision in infants. Likewise nobody puts pressures on governments to legalise paternal abortion, removing any responsibilities a biological father may have towards any children they might have (if they don\u2019t decide if there\u2019s a baby, why do they become responsible?). Along the same lines of that point, feminists in France illegalised paternity tests without the mother\u2019s permission. Paternity fraud is a huge issue in France, men aren\u2019t even legally allowed to test to see if the child they are paying for is their\u2019s.   The whole women\u2019s suffrage issue is still talked about to this day too, as if men could vote for centuries and women have only just got the vote. In reality women got the right to vote just 10 years after men of the same age in the UK. And in the USA voting for men is still dependent on conscription to the draft. That little caveat was never included for women and at the time of getting the vote many women didn\u2019t even want it because it was originally going to include the same terms. That isn\u2019t equality.  And not to mention feminists are making it so women get more lenient punishments in court for the same crime - https:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-1311004\/amp\/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html  Feminism is not about equality.","human_ref_B":">there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc.  Before we look for a specific reason these issues aren't being addressed, I think it's probably best to zoom out a bit to think about how many issues there are that need more attention in general.   We're just not as efficient as we'd like to be at addressing problems.   If there's a major bottleneck that makes it hard to solve issues, you want to widen the bottle neck. Anything else is basically zero sum.   If the way society views men hinges in any way on the behaviour of some internet community, that community could be a bunch of saints and I'd still call it a loss.   What kind of attention is actually needed? Would trying to raise public awareness actually help? Is anyone in the relevant fields unaware of the issues? Are we trying to wrestle public focus?   Telling someone an issue needs more attention causes instant scepticism because you're trying to sell it in the market of ideas and most people have a limited budget.   People will accept it if it's given for free, people will have a conversation with you about anything.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3490.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7hhzf","c_root_id_B":"he83vi9","created_at_utc_A":1632567746,"created_at_utc_B":1632579974,"score_A":13,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Most normal people outside of reddit never heard of any of these groups.  Why would a bunch of nerds online complaining that they can't get dates have an effect on actual jurisprudence? Do you really think that is how the legal system operates, on the criteria of judging case law based on some annoyance factor?  The real reason these issues aren't addressed is because they are all separate things, each one the result of a myriad of complex societal factors that do not happen merely \"Because Men\", and it's just happenstance that they primarily effect men as a commonality.  I'll give you an example. There are actually more homeless women then men. But the majority of homeless women are fleeing domestic abuse, and because of that they have battered womens shelters, and because they can stay there they aren't counted as homeless.  Much less homeless men are fleeing domestic abuse, so they don't have battered men's shelters, etc.  So the problem of men's homelessness compared to women is an issue of how homeless is classified more than any issue between the two groups, and that doesn't even touch on the actual issues of homelessness itself.","human_ref_B":"Any feminist worth his\/her salt understands that patriarchal structures hurt men too. We actually do care that men are pressured to suppress their emotions and any sign of vulnerability, are forced to risk their lives where conscription does exist (for instance, in South Korea), bear the economic brunt of family provision, are punished\/regarded as pedophiles for taking care of or liking children, are excluded from conversations about rape and abuse and suffer greater stigma for talking about it.  Kate Mann talks about it in Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, Elizabeth Warren addresses these issues in The Two Income Trap.  Yet there are a lot of feminists out there who aren't worth their salt, who are clearly taking out the pain they've experienced due to some men on all men, and unfortunately, these assholes are loud, and the media loves crazy more than it loves rationality. And I think that's why men feel safer addressing these concerns in the context of men's rights than within the context of feminism. I also think the same thing happens here-- the most extreme views are the loudest and get spread more than the more reasonable views.  When I encounter someone who expresses sympathy for the men's rights movement, the first thing I say is that we probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I don't want to say I'm a humanist instead of a feminist, because to do that is to let the assholes take control of the word \"feminism\". Similarly, I see no need for a men's rights advocate to suddenly call himself a feminist. I really think the most rational members of feminists and men's rights advocates need to establish a common ground and have a healthier discourse with each other.  As for incels, I got nothing for ya. Men's Right's Advocates aren't famous for going on killing sprees that I know of.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12228.0,"score_ratio":1.3076923077}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he83vi9","c_root_id_B":"he7mqwq","created_at_utc_A":1632579974,"created_at_utc_B":1632571177,"score_A":17,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Any feminist worth his\/her salt understands that patriarchal structures hurt men too. We actually do care that men are pressured to suppress their emotions and any sign of vulnerability, are forced to risk their lives where conscription does exist (for instance, in South Korea), bear the economic brunt of family provision, are punished\/regarded as pedophiles for taking care of or liking children, are excluded from conversations about rape and abuse and suffer greater stigma for talking about it.  Kate Mann talks about it in Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, Elizabeth Warren addresses these issues in The Two Income Trap.  Yet there are a lot of feminists out there who aren't worth their salt, who are clearly taking out the pain they've experienced due to some men on all men, and unfortunately, these assholes are loud, and the media loves crazy more than it loves rationality. And I think that's why men feel safer addressing these concerns in the context of men's rights than within the context of feminism. I also think the same thing happens here-- the most extreme views are the loudest and get spread more than the more reasonable views.  When I encounter someone who expresses sympathy for the men's rights movement, the first thing I say is that we probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I don't want to say I'm a humanist instead of a feminist, because to do that is to let the assholes take control of the word \"feminism\". Similarly, I see no need for a men's rights advocate to suddenly call himself a feminist. I really think the most rational members of feminists and men's rights advocates need to establish a common ground and have a healthier discourse with each other.  As for incels, I got nothing for ya. Men's Right's Advocates aren't famous for going on killing sprees that I know of.","human_ref_B":"The reason you should change your view is their are female groups just like those male groups you mention. Radfems, female incels etc. so clearly the existence of these groups doesn\u2019t change the attention the underlying cause receives for females, so why should it change the attention men\u2019s issues receive?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8797.0,"score_ratio":2.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7j8ik","c_root_id_B":"he83vi9","created_at_utc_A":1632568952,"created_at_utc_B":1632579974,"score_A":6,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":">there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc.  Before we look for a specific reason these issues aren't being addressed, I think it's probably best to zoom out a bit to think about how many issues there are that need more attention in general.   We're just not as efficient as we'd like to be at addressing problems.   If there's a major bottleneck that makes it hard to solve issues, you want to widen the bottle neck. Anything else is basically zero sum.   If the way society views men hinges in any way on the behaviour of some internet community, that community could be a bunch of saints and I'd still call it a loss.   What kind of attention is actually needed? Would trying to raise public awareness actually help? Is anyone in the relevant fields unaware of the issues? Are we trying to wrestle public focus?   Telling someone an issue needs more attention causes instant scepticism because you're trying to sell it in the market of ideas and most people have a limited budget.   People will accept it if it's given for free, people will have a conversation with you about anything.","human_ref_B":"Any feminist worth his\/her salt understands that patriarchal structures hurt men too. We actually do care that men are pressured to suppress their emotions and any sign of vulnerability, are forced to risk their lives where conscription does exist (for instance, in South Korea), bear the economic brunt of family provision, are punished\/regarded as pedophiles for taking care of or liking children, are excluded from conversations about rape and abuse and suffer greater stigma for talking about it.  Kate Mann talks about it in Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, Elizabeth Warren addresses these issues in The Two Income Trap.  Yet there are a lot of feminists out there who aren't worth their salt, who are clearly taking out the pain they've experienced due to some men on all men, and unfortunately, these assholes are loud, and the media loves crazy more than it loves rationality. And I think that's why men feel safer addressing these concerns in the context of men's rights than within the context of feminism. I also think the same thing happens here-- the most extreme views are the loudest and get spread more than the more reasonable views.  When I encounter someone who expresses sympathy for the men's rights movement, the first thing I say is that we probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I don't want to say I'm a humanist instead of a feminist, because to do that is to let the assholes take control of the word \"feminism\". Similarly, I see no need for a men's rights advocate to suddenly call himself a feminist. I really think the most rational members of feminists and men's rights advocates need to establish a common ground and have a healthier discourse with each other.  As for incels, I got nothing for ya. Men's Right's Advocates aren't famous for going on killing sprees that I know of.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11022.0,"score_ratio":2.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he84jlw","c_root_id_B":"he7mqwq","created_at_utc_A":1632580290,"created_at_utc_B":1632571177,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It seems that your opinion is that ideological groups should lose legitimacy if, and only if, a nonzero number of violent acts are perpetrated by a member of that ideology. Is that correct?","human_ref_B":"The reason you should change your view is their are female groups just like those male groups you mention. Radfems, female incels etc. so clearly the existence of these groups doesn\u2019t change the attention the underlying cause receives for females, so why should it change the attention men\u2019s issues receive?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9113.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7mqwq","c_root_id_B":"he7j8ik","created_at_utc_A":1632571177,"created_at_utc_B":1632568952,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The reason you should change your view is their are female groups just like those male groups you mention. Radfems, female incels etc. so clearly the existence of these groups doesn\u2019t change the attention the underlying cause receives for females, so why should it change the attention men\u2019s issues receive?","human_ref_B":">there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc.  Before we look for a specific reason these issues aren't being addressed, I think it's probably best to zoom out a bit to think about how many issues there are that need more attention in general.   We're just not as efficient as we'd like to be at addressing problems.   If there's a major bottleneck that makes it hard to solve issues, you want to widen the bottle neck. Anything else is basically zero sum.   If the way society views men hinges in any way on the behaviour of some internet community, that community could be a bunch of saints and I'd still call it a loss.   What kind of attention is actually needed? Would trying to raise public awareness actually help? Is anyone in the relevant fields unaware of the issues? Are we trying to wrestle public focus?   Telling someone an issue needs more attention causes instant scepticism because you're trying to sell it in the market of ideas and most people have a limited budget.   People will accept it if it's given for free, people will have a conversation with you about anything.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2225.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"pv4a43","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: At least part of the reason of why men's issues don\u00b4t get attention is because of men's groups    The title may sound weird, but allow me to explain.  Speaking as a man, there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc. These issues do not receive the (positive) attention they need to be adressed. However, the behaviour of men\u00b4s groups like MRAs, MGTOWs and Incels does ***not*** help matters at all.  The lowest hanging fruit to critic are Incels and MGTOWs. These are utter jokes at best and echo-chambers of misogyny and downright pseudoscience (redpill, blackpill, bitemyasspill) at worst. Incels have downright spawned a few mass-murderers. Complain about feminist how much you like, I never heard of a feminist spree-killer.Needless to say, not many people are going to be receptive towards helping with male issues when they are forefronted by those types.  MRAs are much more reasonable, and actually occasionally bring valid issues. But their rhetoric is highly flawed:  \\-They focus heavily on competing with, opposing and discrediting feminism instead of actual male issues (and even blame male issues on feminism).  \\-MRAs rarely offer solutions to male issues.  \\-Focus on bogus issues like conscription (the USA has no true conscription since vietnam and is extremely unlikely to actually start to draft people again in any foresable future) comparing circumcision with FGM ( is simply not remotely comparable from an anatomical and medical perspective), and women getting free drinks and favors.  \\-Misogyny. Just as much, if not much more, than there is misandry in feminism.  \\-Identifing with conservatives, despite the fact that a lot men\u00b4s issues can be solved with progressive policies (cultural biases and pressures can be solved with cultural debate and change, legal issues with a reformed and more lenient judicial system, etc)  So, there is that.","c_root_id_A":"he7j8ik","c_root_id_B":"he84jlw","created_at_utc_A":1632568952,"created_at_utc_B":1632580290,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":">there are a lot of societal issues that affect men, such as bias in family and criminal courts, homelessness, more pressure to sucess, less support for a variety of ills,etc.  Before we look for a specific reason these issues aren't being addressed, I think it's probably best to zoom out a bit to think about how many issues there are that need more attention in general.   We're just not as efficient as we'd like to be at addressing problems.   If there's a major bottleneck that makes it hard to solve issues, you want to widen the bottle neck. Anything else is basically zero sum.   If the way society views men hinges in any way on the behaviour of some internet community, that community could be a bunch of saints and I'd still call it a loss.   What kind of attention is actually needed? Would trying to raise public awareness actually help? Is anyone in the relevant fields unaware of the issues? Are we trying to wrestle public focus?   Telling someone an issue needs more attention causes instant scepticism because you're trying to sell it in the market of ideas and most people have a limited budget.   People will accept it if it's given for free, people will have a conversation with you about anything.","human_ref_B":"It seems that your opinion is that ideological groups should lose legitimacy if, and only if, a nonzero number of violent acts are perpetrated by a member of that ideology. Is that correct?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11338.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"ljmp8w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think gender identity exists I don\u2019t mean gender as part of a shared cultural experience. Like most self-referential identities, gender is an incredibly useful lens for looking at the world. I understand this.  What I don\u2019t think exists is what people mean when they treat gender as a personal experience.  Like when someone says \u201cI am a woman,\u201d and they mean it in the sense of \u201cI, myself, am a woman\u201d not \u201cI am part of the global community of women.\u201d   I know what gender identity isn\u2019t:  * genitals * personality * masculine\/feminine presentation * preferred hormone levels * an emotion * the presence\/absence of body dysmorphia  * what other people think your gender is * pronouns * how others interact with you * how you interact with others  But I don\u2019t know what it actually is. I don't think most people do.  The best definition I\u2019ve found online is:   >How you, in your head, define your gender, based on how much you align (or don\u2019t align) with what you understand to be the options for gender.  But this broadness leads to the question: how do you distinguish gender identity from identity in general?  I don\u2019t think you can.\\*  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  &#x200B;     \\*I guess technically, you could view identity through an analytical framework of social constructs like gender, race, sexuality, religion, class, etc. but imo this analysis isn\u2019t identity- its external factors that have affected identity. I don't think this distinction is just semantics either. I think it differentiates between personal and impersonal. Identity is personal, and I don't think gender can be a personal experience.","c_root_id_A":"gne1cv0","c_root_id_B":"gne73a5","created_at_utc_A":1613304028,"created_at_utc_B":1613306465,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">\tLike when someone says \u201cI am a woman,\u201d and they mean it in the sense of \u201cI, myself, am a woman\u201d not \u201cI am part of the global community of women.\u201d  I don\u2019t know if this is entirely correct. There are certainly shared experiences that would both define ones individual experience of being a woman (or a man, or a child, or a taxi driver, or a newsagent or whatever) and which would therefore contribute to something like a shared identity with others who have had many of those same experiences.  I suspect the extent of the overlap reduces with other cultural and perhaps geographic distance. But for example the experience women in western cultures have had in workplace discrimination lends credence to a \u2018I am a woman\u2019 statement as part of a wider community rather than just for that one individual.   Like you say, it\u2019s one lens for looking at the world. But the lens only makes sense if there is some shared cultural and\/or experiential basis for it that others can understand and identify with. Even if only as a contrast to their own experience.","human_ref_B":">I guess technically, you could view identity through an analytical framework of social constructs like gender, race, sexuality, religion, class, etc. but imo this analysis isn\u2019t identity- its external factors that have affected identity. I don't think this distinction is just semantics either. I think it differentiates between personal and impersonal. Identity is personal, and I don't think gender can be a personal experience.  I don't see your problem, it sounds to me like you are defining the distinction between social construction and identity right here.  Religion is a social construct. So saying \"I personally identify as a Christian\", is a religious identity. It is personal, not determined by external factors, because it is just something that you say about yourself, while society might categorize you differently.  There you have it.  If the social construction of gender is made up of \"external factors that have affected identity\", like the ones that you listed above, then gender identity is the thing which the external factors might have affacted.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2437.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"w7mo8y","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Denying someone service on religious while working should not be a protected right Edit to title: on religious grounds  This is partially inspired by the situation that happened at a Walgreens when a clerk refused to sell a couple condoms.  Now to specify, this refers to secular jobs. Not churches, religious schools and so on so forth. Run of the mill jobs.  Here are my issues with the situation and why I see it as a dangerous trend  \\#1 It's forcing your beliefs on to other people  Pretty basic. \"My religions bans X so I am banning X for everyone\". Nobody should have the right to do that. Your religion is your own thing. It does not give you blanket allowance to  meddle into other persons lives. The whole \"Saving your soul from damnation\" (For Christians specificially) does not apply when you are working a job. You were hired to do that job, not to convert and harass people.  If your job forces you to go against your beliefs. GET ANOTHER JOB.  \\#2 You can bullshit your way to discriminate against anyone on religious grounds  Religious texts are open to interpretation in a lot of places, sometimes self contradictory. So one can easily create a reason to deny anyone service. American evangelicals have used the bible to justify everything from slavery to lynching to denying people medical service (AIDS crisis). This should not be a legally protected right because it's so dangerous.  &#x200B;  Imagine the following more dire scenarios.  A man runs into a pharmacy and needs medicine Z asap. Matter of life and death. The clerk refuses to sell it because it was developed with stem cells. What happens then? What if there isn't a manager on call to check him out instead? Congratulations, a person died by the clerk held true to their beliefs.  Imagine a bunch of firefighters leaving an active fire because \"It's the sabath now, we can't work\"  Am I the only one who sees allowing this as complete and utter insanity?","c_root_id_A":"ihkf53p","c_root_id_B":"ihkeel5","created_at_utc_A":1658750074,"created_at_utc_B":1658749646,"score_A":12,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you on this specific case, but I worry about the greater implications\/precedent your view implies. I'm not religious at all and I don't want anyone else's religious views to effect me in any way at all. That said, I also don't think it's a good idea for my employer to be able to force me to violate my deeply held convictions.   Take religion out of it for a moment. Say you are a pacifist and completely abhor violence in any way. You take a job as a store clerk. Maybe this place has been robbed once or twice in the past. As a precaution the store owner has purchased a firearm to keep behind the counter. They're willing to cover all the expenses to pay for training, licensing, etc to make it legal. Should they be allowed to require you to defend yourself with violence in the event of a robbery? Assume there are no legal issues (ie it would be considered self-defense, etc)  Or what if you have a deeply held conviction in support of labor unions and the right to organize. There is a strike at your workplace. Should your employer be able to force you to cross the picket line?  I'm honestly not sure then answer, and I don't like the idea of someone being able to deny me medicine because their Sky Daddy said so, but at the same time I don't like giving employers that much control over what they can force us to do.","human_ref_B":"This is a Walgreens policy, not a right protected by the government. Hence the movement to boycott Walgreens.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":428.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"rs5g3c","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Weed is not nearly dangerous enough to be considered Schedule I and should be legal in the US I\u2019ve seen alcohol and cigarette addiction absolutely destroy and end peoples\u2019 lives, yet the sale and consumption of both of them is both morally and legally acceptable.  On the other hand, marijuana is illegal and considered immoral by the general public despite it being generally considered safer.  The DEA reports 0 deaths per year from cannabis use alone compared to 88,000 from alcohol abuse and 480,000 from cigarettes.  Almost all of what I was taught regarding cannabis in the public school system growing up I later found out was misinformation designed to scare me and my peers away from using it.  I can\u2019t for the life of me think of any reason for this substance specifically to still be treated this way.","c_root_id_A":"hqkojfs","c_root_id_B":"hqkhmam","created_at_utc_A":1640887705,"created_at_utc_B":1640885102,"score_A":90,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Doc here.  I work in a psychiatric hospital, it's not uncommon for someone to get admitted for a cannabis-induced or -exacerbated psychosis or acute mood crisis.  A really common pattern in my outpatient clinic is patients who use cannabis to self-medicate their insomnia, poor appetite, or mood complaints, but what they are really treating is their own cannabis withdrawal symptoms.  If I can get them through the withdrawals, they universally do much better off the weed.  At least we can get a clearer idea of their mental health without the marijuana clouding the diagnostic picture.  Just like alcohol, it's a powerful and addictive psychoactive drug that can worsen your mental health.  No one has presented any convincing evidence it has any health benefits.  That's why it is Schedule I, while things like amphetamines are Schedule II and benzodiazepines are Schedule IV.  Edit: I'm surprised at the hostility in some of the responses - it really does sound like addict talk.   I was a bit imprecise in my language; what I was trying to say is that there is no evidence cannabis has health benefits superior to the current standard of care.  I use the word 'evidence' in the medical sense.  \"My buddy smoked weed and his pain got better\" is not evidence.","human_ref_B":"You wouldn't really expect that many direct weed deaths yet, because it's a lot more like tobacco... which is kind of a disaster that would have been nice to have nipped in the bud (if you'll pardon the expression) before it came to be so culturally ingrained.   And that's largely because of usage levels being low due to cost, illegality, and availability. If it weren't for vaping, I would expect vastly increased weed usage to result in the same kind of lung cancer deaths that tobacco causes (albeit fewer), because... frankly... why wouldn't it? Inhaling burning plants is why you get lung cancer (nicotine causes other problems) from smoking. It's just a bad idea.   And it's known to cause driving impairment, so expect to see some number of deaths there.   Also: second hand weed smoke is super obnoxious, and contact highs are a real thing... so I certainly hope that regulations prohibiting its use in public places continue to exist.   But Schedule I? Yeah, that's dumb and always has been. It should have been Schedule II at the highest, as it has clear medical uses.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2603.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"rs5g3c","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Weed is not nearly dangerous enough to be considered Schedule I and should be legal in the US I\u2019ve seen alcohol and cigarette addiction absolutely destroy and end peoples\u2019 lives, yet the sale and consumption of both of them is both morally and legally acceptable.  On the other hand, marijuana is illegal and considered immoral by the general public despite it being generally considered safer.  The DEA reports 0 deaths per year from cannabis use alone compared to 88,000 from alcohol abuse and 480,000 from cigarettes.  Almost all of what I was taught regarding cannabis in the public school system growing up I later found out was misinformation designed to scare me and my peers away from using it.  I can\u2019t for the life of me think of any reason for this substance specifically to still be treated this way.","c_root_id_A":"hqkojfs","c_root_id_B":"hqkglf4","created_at_utc_A":1640887705,"created_at_utc_B":1640884720,"score_A":90,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Doc here.  I work in a psychiatric hospital, it's not uncommon for someone to get admitted for a cannabis-induced or -exacerbated psychosis or acute mood crisis.  A really common pattern in my outpatient clinic is patients who use cannabis to self-medicate their insomnia, poor appetite, or mood complaints, but what they are really treating is their own cannabis withdrawal symptoms.  If I can get them through the withdrawals, they universally do much better off the weed.  At least we can get a clearer idea of their mental health without the marijuana clouding the diagnostic picture.  Just like alcohol, it's a powerful and addictive psychoactive drug that can worsen your mental health.  No one has presented any convincing evidence it has any health benefits.  That's why it is Schedule I, while things like amphetamines are Schedule II and benzodiazepines are Schedule IV.  Edit: I'm surprised at the hostility in some of the responses - it really does sound like addict talk.   I was a bit imprecise in my language; what I was trying to say is that there is no evidence cannabis has health benefits superior to the current standard of care.  I use the word 'evidence' in the medical sense.  \"My buddy smoked weed and his pain got better\" is not evidence.","human_ref_B":"The entire system of policy for drugs is incorrect, causes more consequences than benefits, and has done nothing to slow or stop the use of drugs in America. Prescription drugs caused over 40 deaths per day on average in 2019. Alcohol and alcohol related accidents triple that. None of it makes sense and trying to use logic to understand it will just anger you. The entire system is a fucking disgrace and the unintended effects of a 60 year war on drugs has been awful for the poor and middle class. Costly in lives, money, resources, and has done nothing it intended to do other than to fill up prisons with black and poor people.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2985.0,"score_ratio":8.1818181818}
+{"post_id":"rs5g3c","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Weed is not nearly dangerous enough to be considered Schedule I and should be legal in the US I\u2019ve seen alcohol and cigarette addiction absolutely destroy and end peoples\u2019 lives, yet the sale and consumption of both of them is both morally and legally acceptable.  On the other hand, marijuana is illegal and considered immoral by the general public despite it being generally considered safer.  The DEA reports 0 deaths per year from cannabis use alone compared to 88,000 from alcohol abuse and 480,000 from cigarettes.  Almost all of what I was taught regarding cannabis in the public school system growing up I later found out was misinformation designed to scare me and my peers away from using it.  I can\u2019t for the life of me think of any reason for this substance specifically to still be treated this way.","c_root_id_A":"hqkhmam","c_root_id_B":"hqlblb6","created_at_utc_A":1640885102,"created_at_utc_B":1640896604,"score_A":18,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"You wouldn't really expect that many direct weed deaths yet, because it's a lot more like tobacco... which is kind of a disaster that would have been nice to have nipped in the bud (if you'll pardon the expression) before it came to be so culturally ingrained.   And that's largely because of usage levels being low due to cost, illegality, and availability. If it weren't for vaping, I would expect vastly increased weed usage to result in the same kind of lung cancer deaths that tobacco causes (albeit fewer), because... frankly... why wouldn't it? Inhaling burning plants is why you get lung cancer (nicotine causes other problems) from smoking. It's just a bad idea.   And it's known to cause driving impairment, so expect to see some number of deaths there.   Also: second hand weed smoke is super obnoxious, and contact highs are a real thing... so I certainly hope that regulations prohibiting its use in public places continue to exist.   But Schedule I? Yeah, that's dumb and always has been. It should have been Schedule II at the highest, as it has clear medical uses.","human_ref_B":"Marijuana may be effective as a treatment for some things. It also carries risks.    https:\/\/www.mayoclinic.org\/healthy-lifestyle\/consumer-health\/in-depth\/medical-marijuana\/art-20137855  I agree smoking is unsafe as is excessive alcohol.  But why should be legalize weed?  Let the FDA approve it for medical use.  If it helps in some instances let a doctor prescribe it and buy it at a pharmacy.  That way it is prescribed for a specific illness and the proper dosing is given to the patient.  Also pharmacies see other medications someone is on and will know if there are possible interactions with other drugs.  Something with benefits can still be illegal. Most prescription drugs are illegal to get  without a prescription.    Some studies also show that you can get these benefits in some cases without a high.   So I would ask anyone who supports legalization.  Would you be happy if you could only get it with a prescription, and have it without the high or with less of a high?  While it keeps it's medical benefits.  If you answer yes you truly care about the medical benefits.  If you answer no, then the medical benefits are just and excuse for legalization do you can get high.    Now I personally think it should be similar to alcohol.  Sold though from places with a license to do so.  It should be grown and produced in exacting standards and it's potency limited and clearly marked.  Just like alcohol.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11502.0,"score_ratio":1.2222222222}
+{"post_id":"rs5g3c","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Weed is not nearly dangerous enough to be considered Schedule I and should be legal in the US I\u2019ve seen alcohol and cigarette addiction absolutely destroy and end peoples\u2019 lives, yet the sale and consumption of both of them is both morally and legally acceptable.  On the other hand, marijuana is illegal and considered immoral by the general public despite it being generally considered safer.  The DEA reports 0 deaths per year from cannabis use alone compared to 88,000 from alcohol abuse and 480,000 from cigarettes.  Almost all of what I was taught regarding cannabis in the public school system growing up I later found out was misinformation designed to scare me and my peers away from using it.  I can\u2019t for the life of me think of any reason for this substance specifically to still be treated this way.","c_root_id_A":"hqkglf4","c_root_id_B":"hqlblb6","created_at_utc_A":1640884720,"created_at_utc_B":1640896604,"score_A":11,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"The entire system of policy for drugs is incorrect, causes more consequences than benefits, and has done nothing to slow or stop the use of drugs in America. Prescription drugs caused over 40 deaths per day on average in 2019. Alcohol and alcohol related accidents triple that. None of it makes sense and trying to use logic to understand it will just anger you. The entire system is a fucking disgrace and the unintended effects of a 60 year war on drugs has been awful for the poor and middle class. Costly in lives, money, resources, and has done nothing it intended to do other than to fill up prisons with black and poor people.","human_ref_B":"Marijuana may be effective as a treatment for some things. It also carries risks.    https:\/\/www.mayoclinic.org\/healthy-lifestyle\/consumer-health\/in-depth\/medical-marijuana\/art-20137855  I agree smoking is unsafe as is excessive alcohol.  But why should be legalize weed?  Let the FDA approve it for medical use.  If it helps in some instances let a doctor prescribe it and buy it at a pharmacy.  That way it is prescribed for a specific illness and the proper dosing is given to the patient.  Also pharmacies see other medications someone is on and will know if there are possible interactions with other drugs.  Something with benefits can still be illegal. Most prescription drugs are illegal to get  without a prescription.    Some studies also show that you can get these benefits in some cases without a high.   So I would ask anyone who supports legalization.  Would you be happy if you could only get it with a prescription, and have it without the high or with less of a high?  While it keeps it's medical benefits.  If you answer yes you truly care about the medical benefits.  If you answer no, then the medical benefits are just and excuse for legalization do you can get high.    Now I personally think it should be similar to alcohol.  Sold though from places with a license to do so.  It should be grown and produced in exacting standards and it's potency limited and clearly marked.  Just like alcohol.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11884.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"rs5g3c","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Weed is not nearly dangerous enough to be considered Schedule I and should be legal in the US I\u2019ve seen alcohol and cigarette addiction absolutely destroy and end peoples\u2019 lives, yet the sale and consumption of both of them is both morally and legally acceptable.  On the other hand, marijuana is illegal and considered immoral by the general public despite it being generally considered safer.  The DEA reports 0 deaths per year from cannabis use alone compared to 88,000 from alcohol abuse and 480,000 from cigarettes.  Almost all of what I was taught regarding cannabis in the public school system growing up I later found out was misinformation designed to scare me and my peers away from using it.  I can\u2019t for the life of me think of any reason for this substance specifically to still be treated this way.","c_root_id_A":"hqkglf4","c_root_id_B":"hqkhmam","created_at_utc_A":1640884720,"created_at_utc_B":1640885102,"score_A":11,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"The entire system of policy for drugs is incorrect, causes more consequences than benefits, and has done nothing to slow or stop the use of drugs in America. Prescription drugs caused over 40 deaths per day on average in 2019. Alcohol and alcohol related accidents triple that. None of it makes sense and trying to use logic to understand it will just anger you. The entire system is a fucking disgrace and the unintended effects of a 60 year war on drugs has been awful for the poor and middle class. Costly in lives, money, resources, and has done nothing it intended to do other than to fill up prisons with black and poor people.","human_ref_B":"You wouldn't really expect that many direct weed deaths yet, because it's a lot more like tobacco... which is kind of a disaster that would have been nice to have nipped in the bud (if you'll pardon the expression) before it came to be so culturally ingrained.   And that's largely because of usage levels being low due to cost, illegality, and availability. If it weren't for vaping, I would expect vastly increased weed usage to result in the same kind of lung cancer deaths that tobacco causes (albeit fewer), because... frankly... why wouldn't it? Inhaling burning plants is why you get lung cancer (nicotine causes other problems) from smoking. It's just a bad idea.   And it's known to cause driving impairment, so expect to see some number of deaths there.   Also: second hand weed smoke is super obnoxious, and contact highs are a real thing... so I certainly hope that regulations prohibiting its use in public places continue to exist.   But Schedule I? Yeah, that's dumb and always has been. It should have been Schedule II at the highest, as it has clear medical uses.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":382.0,"score_ratio":1.6363636364}
+{"post_id":"rs5g3c","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Weed is not nearly dangerous enough to be considered Schedule I and should be legal in the US I\u2019ve seen alcohol and cigarette addiction absolutely destroy and end peoples\u2019 lives, yet the sale and consumption of both of them is both morally and legally acceptable.  On the other hand, marijuana is illegal and considered immoral by the general public despite it being generally considered safer.  The DEA reports 0 deaths per year from cannabis use alone compared to 88,000 from alcohol abuse and 480,000 from cigarettes.  Almost all of what I was taught regarding cannabis in the public school system growing up I later found out was misinformation designed to scare me and my peers away from using it.  I can\u2019t for the life of me think of any reason for this substance specifically to still be treated this way.","c_root_id_A":"hqll3mk","c_root_id_B":"hqllq3k","created_at_utc_A":1640900345,"created_at_utc_B":1640900591,"score_A":12,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":">We knew we couldn\u2019t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.\u00a0  >Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.\u201d  >~ John Ehrlichman,\u00a0Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President\u00a0Richard Nixon  It was never about public health. You fell for the lie hook, line, and sinker.  It was about control. Still is. For that reason alone it's still an effective tool for the powers that be.","human_ref_B":"\u201cNot nearly dangerous enough\u201d  Here\u2019s an anecdote: my best friend lost everything to pot. First to go was his medical career. Smoking daily, several times a day, being unable to clearly process information and work with patients\u2026 he got several complaints, the hospital followed through, and to deal with the stress? He smoked more.   Second to go was his marriage. He ended up becoming a stay at home dad after losing his medical license. The wife couldn\u2019t deal with him being unable to properly take care of the kids because he was high while she was at work. So she left him and took the 4 kids.  Third to go was his new profession. He joined an electricians\u2019 program. Got his license, and eventually lost it as well. And now he\u2019s getting trained as a medical assistant\u2026 but probably won\u2019t be able to finish it since he\u2019s high all the time and is already getting complaints from his internship site.  He left alcoholism for pot. But hasn\u2019t been able to kick the pot habit\/addiction in nearly 20 years. He tells me himself that it\u2019s a worse addiction than alcohol. Maybe he\u2019s just prone to addiction, or maybe it\u2019s worse\u2026 idk. But every time I see the propaganda that pot I s safer than alcohol, my buddy Kev comes to mind.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":246.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"rs5g3c","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Weed is not nearly dangerous enough to be considered Schedule I and should be legal in the US I\u2019ve seen alcohol and cigarette addiction absolutely destroy and end peoples\u2019 lives, yet the sale and consumption of both of them is both morally and legally acceptable.  On the other hand, marijuana is illegal and considered immoral by the general public despite it being generally considered safer.  The DEA reports 0 deaths per year from cannabis use alone compared to 88,000 from alcohol abuse and 480,000 from cigarettes.  Almost all of what I was taught regarding cannabis in the public school system growing up I later found out was misinformation designed to scare me and my peers away from using it.  I can\u2019t for the life of me think of any reason for this substance specifically to still be treated this way.","c_root_id_A":"hqkglf4","c_root_id_B":"hqllq3k","created_at_utc_A":1640884720,"created_at_utc_B":1640900591,"score_A":11,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"The entire system of policy for drugs is incorrect, causes more consequences than benefits, and has done nothing to slow or stop the use of drugs in America. Prescription drugs caused over 40 deaths per day on average in 2019. Alcohol and alcohol related accidents triple that. None of it makes sense and trying to use logic to understand it will just anger you. The entire system is a fucking disgrace and the unintended effects of a 60 year war on drugs has been awful for the poor and middle class. Costly in lives, money, resources, and has done nothing it intended to do other than to fill up prisons with black and poor people.","human_ref_B":"\u201cNot nearly dangerous enough\u201d  Here\u2019s an anecdote: my best friend lost everything to pot. First to go was his medical career. Smoking daily, several times a day, being unable to clearly process information and work with patients\u2026 he got several complaints, the hospital followed through, and to deal with the stress? He smoked more.   Second to go was his marriage. He ended up becoming a stay at home dad after losing his medical license. The wife couldn\u2019t deal with him being unable to properly take care of the kids because he was high while she was at work. So she left him and took the 4 kids.  Third to go was his new profession. He joined an electricians\u2019 program. Got his license, and eventually lost it as well. And now he\u2019s getting trained as a medical assistant\u2026 but probably won\u2019t be able to finish it since he\u2019s high all the time and is already getting complaints from his internship site.  He left alcoholism for pot. But hasn\u2019t been able to kick the pot habit\/addiction in nearly 20 years. He tells me himself that it\u2019s a worse addiction than alcohol. Maybe he\u2019s just prone to addiction, or maybe it\u2019s worse\u2026 idk. But every time I see the propaganda that pot I s safer than alcohol, my buddy Kev comes to mind.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15871.0,"score_ratio":1.2727272727}
+{"post_id":"rs5g3c","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Weed is not nearly dangerous enough to be considered Schedule I and should be legal in the US I\u2019ve seen alcohol and cigarette addiction absolutely destroy and end peoples\u2019 lives, yet the sale and consumption of both of them is both morally and legally acceptable.  On the other hand, marijuana is illegal and considered immoral by the general public despite it being generally considered safer.  The DEA reports 0 deaths per year from cannabis use alone compared to 88,000 from alcohol abuse and 480,000 from cigarettes.  Almost all of what I was taught regarding cannabis in the public school system growing up I later found out was misinformation designed to scare me and my peers away from using it.  I can\u2019t for the life of me think of any reason for this substance specifically to still be treated this way.","c_root_id_A":"hqllq3k","c_root_id_B":"hqlfpuk","created_at_utc_A":1640900591,"created_at_utc_B":1640898229,"score_A":14,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"\u201cNot nearly dangerous enough\u201d  Here\u2019s an anecdote: my best friend lost everything to pot. First to go was his medical career. Smoking daily, several times a day, being unable to clearly process information and work with patients\u2026 he got several complaints, the hospital followed through, and to deal with the stress? He smoked more.   Second to go was his marriage. He ended up becoming a stay at home dad after losing his medical license. The wife couldn\u2019t deal with him being unable to properly take care of the kids because he was high while she was at work. So she left him and took the 4 kids.  Third to go was his new profession. He joined an electricians\u2019 program. Got his license, and eventually lost it as well. And now he\u2019s getting trained as a medical assistant\u2026 but probably won\u2019t be able to finish it since he\u2019s high all the time and is already getting complaints from his internship site.  He left alcoholism for pot. But hasn\u2019t been able to kick the pot habit\/addiction in nearly 20 years. He tells me himself that it\u2019s a worse addiction than alcohol. Maybe he\u2019s just prone to addiction, or maybe it\u2019s worse\u2026 idk. But every time I see the propaganda that pot I s safer than alcohol, my buddy Kev comes to mind.","human_ref_B":"It's rare, but CHS is a pretty serious risk if someone abuses marijuana.  I'm not saying this is a reason for it to be criminalized the way it is, but I think the more we learn about the substance, the more we'll find that some deaths do have a direct connection.  I also believe a large part of the risk is how concentrated modern strains are. It's not healthy to consume large quantities of THC. I use marijuana, don't get me wrong, but I have significantly lowered my intake since learning about CHS. Sounds like a pretty horrific thing to go through. I don't vape, ever. I will never take a dab again.  What we need is an avenue to carry out more research on cannabis. It certainly should not be used by young people, although it is directly marketed to them. Weed culture enables its abuse, which is a serious problem.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2362.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556}
+{"post_id":"rs5g3c","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Weed is not nearly dangerous enough to be considered Schedule I and should be legal in the US I\u2019ve seen alcohol and cigarette addiction absolutely destroy and end peoples\u2019 lives, yet the sale and consumption of both of them is both morally and legally acceptable.  On the other hand, marijuana is illegal and considered immoral by the general public despite it being generally considered safer.  The DEA reports 0 deaths per year from cannabis use alone compared to 88,000 from alcohol abuse and 480,000 from cigarettes.  Almost all of what I was taught regarding cannabis in the public school system growing up I later found out was misinformation designed to scare me and my peers away from using it.  I can\u2019t for the life of me think of any reason for this substance specifically to still be treated this way.","c_root_id_A":"hqkglf4","c_root_id_B":"hqll3mk","created_at_utc_A":1640884720,"created_at_utc_B":1640900345,"score_A":11,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"The entire system of policy for drugs is incorrect, causes more consequences than benefits, and has done nothing to slow or stop the use of drugs in America. Prescription drugs caused over 40 deaths per day on average in 2019. Alcohol and alcohol related accidents triple that. None of it makes sense and trying to use logic to understand it will just anger you. The entire system is a fucking disgrace and the unintended effects of a 60 year war on drugs has been awful for the poor and middle class. Costly in lives, money, resources, and has done nothing it intended to do other than to fill up prisons with black and poor people.","human_ref_B":">We knew we couldn\u2019t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.\u00a0  >Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.\u201d  >~ John Ehrlichman,\u00a0Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President\u00a0Richard Nixon  It was never about public health. You fell for the lie hook, line, and sinker.  It was about control. Still is. For that reason alone it's still an effective tool for the powers that be.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15625.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909}
+{"post_id":"rs5g3c","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Weed is not nearly dangerous enough to be considered Schedule I and should be legal in the US I\u2019ve seen alcohol and cigarette addiction absolutely destroy and end peoples\u2019 lives, yet the sale and consumption of both of them is both morally and legally acceptable.  On the other hand, marijuana is illegal and considered immoral by the general public despite it being generally considered safer.  The DEA reports 0 deaths per year from cannabis use alone compared to 88,000 from alcohol abuse and 480,000 from cigarettes.  Almost all of what I was taught regarding cannabis in the public school system growing up I later found out was misinformation designed to scare me and my peers away from using it.  I can\u2019t for the life of me think of any reason for this substance specifically to still be treated this way.","c_root_id_A":"hqlfpuk","c_root_id_B":"hqll3mk","created_at_utc_A":1640898229,"created_at_utc_B":1640900345,"score_A":9,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"It's rare, but CHS is a pretty serious risk if someone abuses marijuana.  I'm not saying this is a reason for it to be criminalized the way it is, but I think the more we learn about the substance, the more we'll find that some deaths do have a direct connection.  I also believe a large part of the risk is how concentrated modern strains are. It's not healthy to consume large quantities of THC. I use marijuana, don't get me wrong, but I have significantly lowered my intake since learning about CHS. Sounds like a pretty horrific thing to go through. I don't vape, ever. I will never take a dab again.  What we need is an avenue to carry out more research on cannabis. It certainly should not be used by young people, although it is directly marketed to them. Weed culture enables its abuse, which is a serious problem.","human_ref_B":">We knew we couldn\u2019t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.\u00a0  >Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.\u201d  >~ John Ehrlichman,\u00a0Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President\u00a0Richard Nixon  It was never about public health. You fell for the lie hook, line, and sinker.  It was about control. Still is. For that reason alone it's still an effective tool for the powers that be.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2116.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"qe4x5l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say \"I identify as a woman\", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole).   So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)","c_root_id_A":"hhqo6a7","c_root_id_B":"hhqoc8a","created_at_utc_A":1634995773,"created_at_utc_B":1634995861,"score_A":2,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"I've always thought jails should be separated by crime or physical stature.","human_ref_B":"Arent there are already protective units within most prisons for vulnerable prisoners?    Also the stat about trans offenders is pretty worthless given the sample size is so tiny","labels":0,"seconds_difference":88.0,"score_ratio":13.0}
+{"post_id":"qe4x5l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say \"I identify as a woman\", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole).   So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)","c_root_id_A":"hhqrizs","c_root_id_B":"hhqp2x2","created_at_utc_A":1634998061,"created_at_utc_B":1634996236,"score_A":16,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I would argue that creating a 3rd place to evacuate marginalized or vulnerable groups from unsafe conditions first acknowledges that we are keeping prisoner's in men's prisons in unacceptable conditions.  Rather than evaluate who is worth rescuing from these deplorable conditions, and who it's ok to leave behind and forget about, how about we address the conditions?  And the obvious counter is, \"well let's do this *now* and then fix it later\". My counter is that typically, once all the groups people want saved *now* have been, they no longer care enough to do anything later. They leave those that weren't worth saving to rot and be forgotten about. Not from malice, but from apathy. Right now you care. Please continue to care about all of the victims of prison.  Prison has been this way since at least the 1980's, when prison was privatized, and likely long before. Too many people adopt a just world fallacy approach. \"They're in prison, they obviously deserve what they're getting. Don't drop the soap!\" That last, unfortunately popular phrase, places responsibility for not getting prison raped on the victim.  So please, rather than advocate this, advocate prison reform to eliminate the unacceptable and inhumane treatment of all prisoners.","human_ref_B":"Instead of using those resources to build and run an entirely separate prison system wouldn\u2019t it be more efficient to change existing prisons to be less risky for everyone there?  Especially considering that the \u201cat risk of being victimized\u201d is not an easy group to define, and that realistically there would be at least two such groups (trans men and trans women) it seems like even more of an uphill battle than making prisons safer in general.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1825.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"qe4x5l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say \"I identify as a woman\", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole).   So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)","c_root_id_A":"hhqoj5f","c_root_id_B":"hhqrizs","created_at_utc_A":1634995961,"created_at_utc_B":1634998061,"score_A":6,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I clicked through to your link and all of the articles are from right wing \"news\" sources stemming from an anti-trans organization that reported a single instance of pregnancy in the prison. Is there more? Something I'm missing?","human_ref_B":"I would argue that creating a 3rd place to evacuate marginalized or vulnerable groups from unsafe conditions first acknowledges that we are keeping prisoner's in men's prisons in unacceptable conditions.  Rather than evaluate who is worth rescuing from these deplorable conditions, and who it's ok to leave behind and forget about, how about we address the conditions?  And the obvious counter is, \"well let's do this *now* and then fix it later\". My counter is that typically, once all the groups people want saved *now* have been, they no longer care enough to do anything later. They leave those that weren't worth saving to rot and be forgotten about. Not from malice, but from apathy. Right now you care. Please continue to care about all of the victims of prison.  Prison has been this way since at least the 1980's, when prison was privatized, and likely long before. Too many people adopt a just world fallacy approach. \"They're in prison, they obviously deserve what they're getting. Don't drop the soap!\" That last, unfortunately popular phrase, places responsibility for not getting prison raped on the victim.  So please, rather than advocate this, advocate prison reform to eliminate the unacceptable and inhumane treatment of all prisoners.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2100.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"qe4x5l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say \"I identify as a woman\", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole).   So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)","c_root_id_A":"hhqqgjy","c_root_id_B":"hhqrizs","created_at_utc_A":1634997397,"created_at_utc_B":1634998061,"score_A":6,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Consider this ... why do we house people convicted of rape in the same prison as people convicted of drug use, fraud, etc? People who committed non violent crimes are already in danger being placed near people who are in for something like murder, rape, etc.  That's why I think the best solution should be tailored for each prisoner specifically based on their crime. Why couldn't a trans woman be in the woman's prison if her crime was something like embezzling? No reason to believe she'd harm cis women inmates. Then, if a trans women did end up assaulting a woman in prison, she could be moved somewhere else where she couldn't harm others.  I honestly think there should be seperate prisons for violent crimes, like rape and murder, than for crimes like embezzlement. And trans women should be able to be in the women's prison if their crime was nonviolent, but if it's a violent crime then we wouldn't want them around people they could victimize.   But also ... this is a prison. The idea is that inmates are being monitored pretty much constantly. How is the security so lax that things like rape can happen inside a prison walls? Why do many women's prisons have men as guards? There's a lot of issues with the prison system, and I don't think the biggest one is which prison we put trans women in. The lax security, putting all crimes together in the same facilities, etc, are things that we should discuss and fix.","human_ref_B":"I would argue that creating a 3rd place to evacuate marginalized or vulnerable groups from unsafe conditions first acknowledges that we are keeping prisoner's in men's prisons in unacceptable conditions.  Rather than evaluate who is worth rescuing from these deplorable conditions, and who it's ok to leave behind and forget about, how about we address the conditions?  And the obvious counter is, \"well let's do this *now* and then fix it later\". My counter is that typically, once all the groups people want saved *now* have been, they no longer care enough to do anything later. They leave those that weren't worth saving to rot and be forgotten about. Not from malice, but from apathy. Right now you care. Please continue to care about all of the victims of prison.  Prison has been this way since at least the 1980's, when prison was privatized, and likely long before. Too many people adopt a just world fallacy approach. \"They're in prison, they obviously deserve what they're getting. Don't drop the soap!\" That last, unfortunately popular phrase, places responsibility for not getting prison raped on the victim.  So please, rather than advocate this, advocate prison reform to eliminate the unacceptable and inhumane treatment of all prisoners.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":664.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"qe4x5l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say \"I identify as a woman\", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole).   So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)","c_root_id_A":"hhqr8cf","c_root_id_B":"hhqrizs","created_at_utc_A":1634997885,"created_at_utc_B":1634998061,"score_A":3,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"This isn't a terrible idea, but there are perhaps better ones to solve the issue of prisoner violence.  We have examples of institutions that people aren't allowed to leave voluntarily (mental health hospitals, schools, etc) where a culture of rampant violence and gang activity doesn't flourish.  Reforming prison to be a safe place where people sent there can actually work on themselves and be rehabilitated to re enter society is possible. We have models in other countries to look at.  The 2 biggest issues for American prisons are  a. A culture that values punishment over rehabilitation. The idea that prison is a place to throw undesirables, rather than a place to help fellow citizens get better is widely accepted. The cruelty and violence of the prison is likewise seen as part of the punishment. Mass imprisonment is just an accepted part of life here.  b. Many prison's main priority is actually providing prison labor to private companies. When you're a publicly traded company with shareholders looking at your bottom line, it is pretty easy to work from a mindset of \"prisoners as assets\" rather than \"prisoners as recovering humans\". In that mindset, recidivism and extended sentences are preferred outcomes to rehabilitation and early release.  To solve these problems we need to do a couple things to alter the incentives that prisons operate under.  1. End mass incarceration. Stop jailing anyone that isn't a danger to others. No more prison for drugs, homelessness, debt, minor property crime, prostitution, public intoxication, etc. Save prison for the truly dangerous folks like murderers, opioid crisis executives, and klepto-crat white collar criminals.  2. End prison labor. The danger of creating a prison industry that gobbles up lives for profit, supported by huge lobbyist budgets is too great. Making money off prisoners needs to be a bright radioactive line in our laws so this never happens again. Ideally a constitutional amendment.  Without the overcrowding and misanthropic profit motives, the job of managing and rehabilitation of prisoners becomes easier and the perverse incentives to push for mass, revolving-door incarceration go away. Rather than being rewarded for keeping people in the prison system, we should reward facilities for successful rehabilitation.","human_ref_B":"I would argue that creating a 3rd place to evacuate marginalized or vulnerable groups from unsafe conditions first acknowledges that we are keeping prisoner's in men's prisons in unacceptable conditions.  Rather than evaluate who is worth rescuing from these deplorable conditions, and who it's ok to leave behind and forget about, how about we address the conditions?  And the obvious counter is, \"well let's do this *now* and then fix it later\". My counter is that typically, once all the groups people want saved *now* have been, they no longer care enough to do anything later. They leave those that weren't worth saving to rot and be forgotten about. Not from malice, but from apathy. Right now you care. Please continue to care about all of the victims of prison.  Prison has been this way since at least the 1980's, when prison was privatized, and likely long before. Too many people adopt a just world fallacy approach. \"They're in prison, they obviously deserve what they're getting. Don't drop the soap!\" That last, unfortunately popular phrase, places responsibility for not getting prison raped on the victim.  So please, rather than advocate this, advocate prison reform to eliminate the unacceptable and inhumane treatment of all prisoners.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":176.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"qe4x5l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say \"I identify as a woman\", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole).   So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)","c_root_id_A":"hhqo6a7","c_root_id_B":"hhqrizs","created_at_utc_A":1634995773,"created_at_utc_B":1634998061,"score_A":2,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I've always thought jails should be separated by crime or physical stature.","human_ref_B":"I would argue that creating a 3rd place to evacuate marginalized or vulnerable groups from unsafe conditions first acknowledges that we are keeping prisoner's in men's prisons in unacceptable conditions.  Rather than evaluate who is worth rescuing from these deplorable conditions, and who it's ok to leave behind and forget about, how about we address the conditions?  And the obvious counter is, \"well let's do this *now* and then fix it later\". My counter is that typically, once all the groups people want saved *now* have been, they no longer care enough to do anything later. They leave those that weren't worth saving to rot and be forgotten about. Not from malice, but from apathy. Right now you care. Please continue to care about all of the victims of prison.  Prison has been this way since at least the 1980's, when prison was privatized, and likely long before. Too many people adopt a just world fallacy approach. \"They're in prison, they obviously deserve what they're getting. Don't drop the soap!\" That last, unfortunately popular phrase, places responsibility for not getting prison raped on the victim.  So please, rather than advocate this, advocate prison reform to eliminate the unacceptable and inhumane treatment of all prisoners.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2288.0,"score_ratio":8.0}
+{"post_id":"qe4x5l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say \"I identify as a woman\", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole).   So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)","c_root_id_A":"hhqp2x2","c_root_id_B":"hhqoj5f","created_at_utc_A":1634996236,"created_at_utc_B":1634995961,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Instead of using those resources to build and run an entirely separate prison system wouldn\u2019t it be more efficient to change existing prisons to be less risky for everyone there?  Especially considering that the \u201cat risk of being victimized\u201d is not an easy group to define, and that realistically there would be at least two such groups (trans men and trans women) it seems like even more of an uphill battle than making prisons safer in general.","human_ref_B":"I clicked through to your link and all of the articles are from right wing \"news\" sources stemming from an anti-trans organization that reported a single instance of pregnancy in the prison. Is there more? Something I'm missing?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":275.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"qe4x5l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say \"I identify as a woman\", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole).   So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)","c_root_id_A":"hhqp2x2","c_root_id_B":"hhqo6a7","created_at_utc_A":1634996236,"created_at_utc_B":1634995773,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Instead of using those resources to build and run an entirely separate prison system wouldn\u2019t it be more efficient to change existing prisons to be less risky for everyone there?  Especially considering that the \u201cat risk of being victimized\u201d is not an easy group to define, and that realistically there would be at least two such groups (trans men and trans women) it seems like even more of an uphill battle than making prisons safer in general.","human_ref_B":"I've always thought jails should be separated by crime or physical stature.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":463.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"qe4x5l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say \"I identify as a woman\", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole).   So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)","c_root_id_A":"hhqoj5f","c_root_id_B":"hhqo6a7","created_at_utc_A":1634995961,"created_at_utc_B":1634995773,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I clicked through to your link and all of the articles are from right wing \"news\" sources stemming from an anti-trans organization that reported a single instance of pregnancy in the prison. Is there more? Something I'm missing?","human_ref_B":"I've always thought jails should be separated by crime or physical stature.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":188.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"qe4x5l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say \"I identify as a woman\", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole).   So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)","c_root_id_A":"hhqo6a7","c_root_id_B":"hhqqgjy","created_at_utc_A":1634995773,"created_at_utc_B":1634997397,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I've always thought jails should be separated by crime or physical stature.","human_ref_B":"Consider this ... why do we house people convicted of rape in the same prison as people convicted of drug use, fraud, etc? People who committed non violent crimes are already in danger being placed near people who are in for something like murder, rape, etc.  That's why I think the best solution should be tailored for each prisoner specifically based on their crime. Why couldn't a trans woman be in the woman's prison if her crime was something like embezzling? No reason to believe she'd harm cis women inmates. Then, if a trans women did end up assaulting a woman in prison, she could be moved somewhere else where she couldn't harm others.  I honestly think there should be seperate prisons for violent crimes, like rape and murder, than for crimes like embezzlement. And trans women should be able to be in the women's prison if their crime was nonviolent, but if it's a violent crime then we wouldn't want them around people they could victimize.   But also ... this is a prison. The idea is that inmates are being monitored pretty much constantly. How is the security so lax that things like rape can happen inside a prison walls? Why do many women's prisons have men as guards? There's a lot of issues with the prison system, and I don't think the biggest one is which prison we put trans women in. The lax security, putting all crimes together in the same facilities, etc, are things that we should discuss and fix.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1624.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"qe4x5l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say \"I identify as a woman\", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole).   So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)","c_root_id_A":"hhqo6a7","c_root_id_B":"hhqr8cf","created_at_utc_A":1634995773,"created_at_utc_B":1634997885,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I've always thought jails should be separated by crime or physical stature.","human_ref_B":"This isn't a terrible idea, but there are perhaps better ones to solve the issue of prisoner violence.  We have examples of institutions that people aren't allowed to leave voluntarily (mental health hospitals, schools, etc) where a culture of rampant violence and gang activity doesn't flourish.  Reforming prison to be a safe place where people sent there can actually work on themselves and be rehabilitated to re enter society is possible. We have models in other countries to look at.  The 2 biggest issues for American prisons are  a. A culture that values punishment over rehabilitation. The idea that prison is a place to throw undesirables, rather than a place to help fellow citizens get better is widely accepted. The cruelty and violence of the prison is likewise seen as part of the punishment. Mass imprisonment is just an accepted part of life here.  b. Many prison's main priority is actually providing prison labor to private companies. When you're a publicly traded company with shareholders looking at your bottom line, it is pretty easy to work from a mindset of \"prisoners as assets\" rather than \"prisoners as recovering humans\". In that mindset, recidivism and extended sentences are preferred outcomes to rehabilitation and early release.  To solve these problems we need to do a couple things to alter the incentives that prisons operate under.  1. End mass incarceration. Stop jailing anyone that isn't a danger to others. No more prison for drugs, homelessness, debt, minor property crime, prostitution, public intoxication, etc. Save prison for the truly dangerous folks like murderers, opioid crisis executives, and klepto-crat white collar criminals.  2. End prison labor. The danger of creating a prison industry that gobbles up lives for profit, supported by huge lobbyist budgets is too great. Making money off prisoners needs to be a bright radioactive line in our laws so this never happens again. Ideally a constitutional amendment.  Without the overcrowding and misanthropic profit motives, the job of managing and rehabilitation of prisoners becomes easier and the perverse incentives to push for mass, revolving-door incarceration go away. Rather than being rewarded for keeping people in the prison system, we should reward facilities for successful rehabilitation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2112.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"855kfg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: The fact that Saint Patrick\u2019s Day isn\u2019t protested or seen as offensive shows that the idea of cultural appropriation is hinged on the issue of race rather than being about protecting cultures. I\u2019m sorry if the title is weird, but I\u2019m really just looking for someone to reason to me why St Patrick\u2019s Day is generally accepted as fine while other examples of cultural appropriation against other cultures is not.   St Patrick\u2019s Day, while surely an important holiday in Ireland,  seems to me to have become this bastardization in the United States that doesn\u2019t celebrate Ireland but rather mocks it and plays on stereotypes. This idea of the drunk Irishman, originating in the anti-Irish sentiments of the late 19th Century, seems to me to be perpetuated on St. Patrick\u2019s Day in America. Surely people with anti-immigration views could use the photos of the frat parties and bar scenes happening today as propaganda.    The fact that there\u2019s a Snapchat filter out today that looks like a pint glass with a scale on it from \u201cSober\u201d through \u201cdrunk\u201d to \u201cIrish\u201d at the top and the company hasn\u2019t had to publicly apologize is evidence to me enough that for some reason it\u2019s okay to mock the Irish but not other cultures. Now I understand that with issues of prejudice it\u2019s very hard to bluntly compare cultures, but had that \u201cscale\u201d said \u201cNative American\u201d at the top, there would be boycotts, and I don\u2019t understand how one is okay but the other is not. This leads me to believe that it\u2019s fine because the Irish are white, but Native Americans, etc are not, stemming from this white guilt that people have about appropriation.   I suspect it\u2019s something along the lines of how the Irish have been able to mix into \u201cwhite\u201d society and be considered white in America, but if that\u2019s so I still believe that the idea of Cultural Appropriation and people that oppose it should present itself and theirselves as more against appropriation along racial lines rather than \u201ccultural\u201d. Otherwise, those who aren\u2019t educated about why this is wrong will be quick to laugh at the idea.   Please, change my view or at least explain to me why one is accepted and the other is not.","c_root_id_A":"dvuv3yl","c_root_id_B":"dvuv198","created_at_utc_A":1521311450,"created_at_utc_B":1521311365,"score_A":96,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It's the notion of \"punching down\". For instance, making fun of the all-star athlete for being clumsy can be taken as good natured ribbing. Making fun of the lanky, un-athletic nerd for the same can be taken as bullying and rubbing his lack of athleticism in his face. It's often a notion that *feels* like you're picking on someone while they're already down.  The Irish - being seen as \"white\" now, though this was clearly not the case in the not too distant past - are part of a more privileged social group. Where now jokes at their expense no longer feel so much as bullying.   This absolutely introduces moral gray, where there's often a lack of clarity as to what feels right and wrong. And of course, when you introduce situational context that can muddy things up even more.  But in a way, yes - the concept of cultural appropriation is tied to race. In as much as race is tied to the concept of power and\/or privilege. But it's also undeniable that race and culture are often linked. So I think it's more than racial. You'll find the same power dynamic when it comes to men vs. women, superiors vs. subordinates, etc. It's ultimately tied to who has privilege and power as a group in society over others.   That's not to say there's *not* a racial component behind the concept of cultural appropriation. These ideas and concepts are all sort of intricately tied together. But behind it all, it comes down to where power lies.","human_ref_B":"because every single irish pub is getting in on it with boards out front advertising their specials. I don't see native americans hawking whisky to celebrate their national holidays (none come to mind)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":85.0,"score_ratio":24.0}
+{"post_id":"855kfg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: The fact that Saint Patrick\u2019s Day isn\u2019t protested or seen as offensive shows that the idea of cultural appropriation is hinged on the issue of race rather than being about protecting cultures. I\u2019m sorry if the title is weird, but I\u2019m really just looking for someone to reason to me why St Patrick\u2019s Day is generally accepted as fine while other examples of cultural appropriation against other cultures is not.   St Patrick\u2019s Day, while surely an important holiday in Ireland,  seems to me to have become this bastardization in the United States that doesn\u2019t celebrate Ireland but rather mocks it and plays on stereotypes. This idea of the drunk Irishman, originating in the anti-Irish sentiments of the late 19th Century, seems to me to be perpetuated on St. Patrick\u2019s Day in America. Surely people with anti-immigration views could use the photos of the frat parties and bar scenes happening today as propaganda.    The fact that there\u2019s a Snapchat filter out today that looks like a pint glass with a scale on it from \u201cSober\u201d through \u201cdrunk\u201d to \u201cIrish\u201d at the top and the company hasn\u2019t had to publicly apologize is evidence to me enough that for some reason it\u2019s okay to mock the Irish but not other cultures. Now I understand that with issues of prejudice it\u2019s very hard to bluntly compare cultures, but had that \u201cscale\u201d said \u201cNative American\u201d at the top, there would be boycotts, and I don\u2019t understand how one is okay but the other is not. This leads me to believe that it\u2019s fine because the Irish are white, but Native Americans, etc are not, stemming from this white guilt that people have about appropriation.   I suspect it\u2019s something along the lines of how the Irish have been able to mix into \u201cwhite\u201d society and be considered white in America, but if that\u2019s so I still believe that the idea of Cultural Appropriation and people that oppose it should present itself and theirselves as more against appropriation along racial lines rather than \u201ccultural\u201d. Otherwise, those who aren\u2019t educated about why this is wrong will be quick to laugh at the idea.   Please, change my view or at least explain to me why one is accepted and the other is not.","c_root_id_A":"dvuvfz2","c_root_id_B":"dvuvocs","created_at_utc_A":1521311824,"created_at_utc_B":1521312082,"score_A":36,"score_B":38,"human_ref_A":"St. Patrick's Day **is** cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. There are aspects to the American celebration that are genuine and respectful and there are aspects of it that are incredibly insensitive. The fact that we drink 'Irish Car Bombs' and order 'Black and Tans' is very insensitive and appropriative (just made that word up I think) of Irish culture but it is accepted because we don't know or care to learn the history behind why it is insensitive.   My guess is that it is accepted because Americans don't learn Irish history. We don't know about The Troubles and the IRA and *actual* car bombs and we didn't learn about the Easter Uprising and the British Black and Tans massacring civilians and burning down towns.","human_ref_B":"This isn't really a scenario that leaves room for double standards because it's up to the individual communities to determine that for themselves. If the Irish community at large don't see St Patrick's Day as a sacred cultural artifact in need of preservation, do we have some logical obligation to protest and take offense anyway?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":258.0,"score_ratio":1.0555555556}
+{"post_id":"855kfg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: The fact that Saint Patrick\u2019s Day isn\u2019t protested or seen as offensive shows that the idea of cultural appropriation is hinged on the issue of race rather than being about protecting cultures. I\u2019m sorry if the title is weird, but I\u2019m really just looking for someone to reason to me why St Patrick\u2019s Day is generally accepted as fine while other examples of cultural appropriation against other cultures is not.   St Patrick\u2019s Day, while surely an important holiday in Ireland,  seems to me to have become this bastardization in the United States that doesn\u2019t celebrate Ireland but rather mocks it and plays on stereotypes. This idea of the drunk Irishman, originating in the anti-Irish sentiments of the late 19th Century, seems to me to be perpetuated on St. Patrick\u2019s Day in America. Surely people with anti-immigration views could use the photos of the frat parties and bar scenes happening today as propaganda.    The fact that there\u2019s a Snapchat filter out today that looks like a pint glass with a scale on it from \u201cSober\u201d through \u201cdrunk\u201d to \u201cIrish\u201d at the top and the company hasn\u2019t had to publicly apologize is evidence to me enough that for some reason it\u2019s okay to mock the Irish but not other cultures. Now I understand that with issues of prejudice it\u2019s very hard to bluntly compare cultures, but had that \u201cscale\u201d said \u201cNative American\u201d at the top, there would be boycotts, and I don\u2019t understand how one is okay but the other is not. This leads me to believe that it\u2019s fine because the Irish are white, but Native Americans, etc are not, stemming from this white guilt that people have about appropriation.   I suspect it\u2019s something along the lines of how the Irish have been able to mix into \u201cwhite\u201d society and be considered white in America, but if that\u2019s so I still believe that the idea of Cultural Appropriation and people that oppose it should present itself and theirselves as more against appropriation along racial lines rather than \u201ccultural\u201d. Otherwise, those who aren\u2019t educated about why this is wrong will be quick to laugh at the idea.   Please, change my view or at least explain to me why one is accepted and the other is not.","c_root_id_A":"dvuvocs","c_root_id_B":"dvuv198","created_at_utc_A":1521312082,"created_at_utc_B":1521311365,"score_A":38,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This isn't really a scenario that leaves room for double standards because it's up to the individual communities to determine that for themselves. If the Irish community at large don't see St Patrick's Day as a sacred cultural artifact in need of preservation, do we have some logical obligation to protest and take offense anyway?","human_ref_B":"because every single irish pub is getting in on it with boards out front advertising their specials. I don't see native americans hawking whisky to celebrate their national holidays (none come to mind)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":717.0,"score_ratio":9.5}
+{"post_id":"855kfg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: The fact that Saint Patrick\u2019s Day isn\u2019t protested or seen as offensive shows that the idea of cultural appropriation is hinged on the issue of race rather than being about protecting cultures. I\u2019m sorry if the title is weird, but I\u2019m really just looking for someone to reason to me why St Patrick\u2019s Day is generally accepted as fine while other examples of cultural appropriation against other cultures is not.   St Patrick\u2019s Day, while surely an important holiday in Ireland,  seems to me to have become this bastardization in the United States that doesn\u2019t celebrate Ireland but rather mocks it and plays on stereotypes. This idea of the drunk Irishman, originating in the anti-Irish sentiments of the late 19th Century, seems to me to be perpetuated on St. Patrick\u2019s Day in America. Surely people with anti-immigration views could use the photos of the frat parties and bar scenes happening today as propaganda.    The fact that there\u2019s a Snapchat filter out today that looks like a pint glass with a scale on it from \u201cSober\u201d through \u201cdrunk\u201d to \u201cIrish\u201d at the top and the company hasn\u2019t had to publicly apologize is evidence to me enough that for some reason it\u2019s okay to mock the Irish but not other cultures. Now I understand that with issues of prejudice it\u2019s very hard to bluntly compare cultures, but had that \u201cscale\u201d said \u201cNative American\u201d at the top, there would be boycotts, and I don\u2019t understand how one is okay but the other is not. This leads me to believe that it\u2019s fine because the Irish are white, but Native Americans, etc are not, stemming from this white guilt that people have about appropriation.   I suspect it\u2019s something along the lines of how the Irish have been able to mix into \u201cwhite\u201d society and be considered white in America, but if that\u2019s so I still believe that the idea of Cultural Appropriation and people that oppose it should present itself and theirselves as more against appropriation along racial lines rather than \u201ccultural\u201d. Otherwise, those who aren\u2019t educated about why this is wrong will be quick to laugh at the idea.   Please, change my view or at least explain to me why one is accepted and the other is not.","c_root_id_A":"dvuv198","c_root_id_B":"dvuvfz2","created_at_utc_A":1521311365,"created_at_utc_B":1521311824,"score_A":4,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"because every single irish pub is getting in on it with boards out front advertising their specials. I don't see native americans hawking whisky to celebrate their national holidays (none come to mind)","human_ref_B":"St. Patrick's Day **is** cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. There are aspects to the American celebration that are genuine and respectful and there are aspects of it that are incredibly insensitive. The fact that we drink 'Irish Car Bombs' and order 'Black and Tans' is very insensitive and appropriative (just made that word up I think) of Irish culture but it is accepted because we don't know or care to learn the history behind why it is insensitive.   My guess is that it is accepted because Americans don't learn Irish history. We don't know about The Troubles and the IRA and *actual* car bombs and we didn't learn about the Easter Uprising and the British Black and Tans massacring civilians and burning down towns.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":459.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"855kfg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: The fact that Saint Patrick\u2019s Day isn\u2019t protested or seen as offensive shows that the idea of cultural appropriation is hinged on the issue of race rather than being about protecting cultures. I\u2019m sorry if the title is weird, but I\u2019m really just looking for someone to reason to me why St Patrick\u2019s Day is generally accepted as fine while other examples of cultural appropriation against other cultures is not.   St Patrick\u2019s Day, while surely an important holiday in Ireland,  seems to me to have become this bastardization in the United States that doesn\u2019t celebrate Ireland but rather mocks it and plays on stereotypes. This idea of the drunk Irishman, originating in the anti-Irish sentiments of the late 19th Century, seems to me to be perpetuated on St. Patrick\u2019s Day in America. Surely people with anti-immigration views could use the photos of the frat parties and bar scenes happening today as propaganda.    The fact that there\u2019s a Snapchat filter out today that looks like a pint glass with a scale on it from \u201cSober\u201d through \u201cdrunk\u201d to \u201cIrish\u201d at the top and the company hasn\u2019t had to publicly apologize is evidence to me enough that for some reason it\u2019s okay to mock the Irish but not other cultures. Now I understand that with issues of prejudice it\u2019s very hard to bluntly compare cultures, but had that \u201cscale\u201d said \u201cNative American\u201d at the top, there would be boycotts, and I don\u2019t understand how one is okay but the other is not. This leads me to believe that it\u2019s fine because the Irish are white, but Native Americans, etc are not, stemming from this white guilt that people have about appropriation.   I suspect it\u2019s something along the lines of how the Irish have been able to mix into \u201cwhite\u201d society and be considered white in America, but if that\u2019s so I still believe that the idea of Cultural Appropriation and people that oppose it should present itself and theirselves as more against appropriation along racial lines rather than \u201ccultural\u201d. Otherwise, those who aren\u2019t educated about why this is wrong will be quick to laugh at the idea.   Please, change my view or at least explain to me why one is accepted and the other is not.","c_root_id_A":"dvvpsh3","c_root_id_B":"dvy2kyk","created_at_utc_A":1521349453,"created_at_utc_B":1521475984,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't think anyone really cares about the actual background, they just use it as an excuse to get drunk and party.","human_ref_B":"The trouble with this notion is that Irish culture is not in need of protection, because Ireland exists, and Irish people in the US aren\u2019t oppressed.   Let me give you an example. I\u2019m Iranian. And I won\u2019t care if people in the US created a bastardized version of Norouz and butchered it. Why? Because there\u2019s a country of 80 million people (as well as a couple of other countries) that uphold norouz through their culture and institutions. In other words, Iranian culture is not in danger of erasure or dilution or destruction.   Minority cultures like black culture in the US, however, do face that danger. There\u2019s no other country than the US where American black culture exists. And often the culture of black people is just assumed to be \u201cpop culture\u201d and not belonging to them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":126531.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"855kfg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: The fact that Saint Patrick\u2019s Day isn\u2019t protested or seen as offensive shows that the idea of cultural appropriation is hinged on the issue of race rather than being about protecting cultures. I\u2019m sorry if the title is weird, but I\u2019m really just looking for someone to reason to me why St Patrick\u2019s Day is generally accepted as fine while other examples of cultural appropriation against other cultures is not.   St Patrick\u2019s Day, while surely an important holiday in Ireland,  seems to me to have become this bastardization in the United States that doesn\u2019t celebrate Ireland but rather mocks it and plays on stereotypes. This idea of the drunk Irishman, originating in the anti-Irish sentiments of the late 19th Century, seems to me to be perpetuated on St. Patrick\u2019s Day in America. Surely people with anti-immigration views could use the photos of the frat parties and bar scenes happening today as propaganda.    The fact that there\u2019s a Snapchat filter out today that looks like a pint glass with a scale on it from \u201cSober\u201d through \u201cdrunk\u201d to \u201cIrish\u201d at the top and the company hasn\u2019t had to publicly apologize is evidence to me enough that for some reason it\u2019s okay to mock the Irish but not other cultures. Now I understand that with issues of prejudice it\u2019s very hard to bluntly compare cultures, but had that \u201cscale\u201d said \u201cNative American\u201d at the top, there would be boycotts, and I don\u2019t understand how one is okay but the other is not. This leads me to believe that it\u2019s fine because the Irish are white, but Native Americans, etc are not, stemming from this white guilt that people have about appropriation.   I suspect it\u2019s something along the lines of how the Irish have been able to mix into \u201cwhite\u201d society and be considered white in America, but if that\u2019s so I still believe that the idea of Cultural Appropriation and people that oppose it should present itself and theirselves as more against appropriation along racial lines rather than \u201ccultural\u201d. Otherwise, those who aren\u2019t educated about why this is wrong will be quick to laugh at the idea.   Please, change my view or at least explain to me why one is accepted and the other is not.","c_root_id_A":"dvy2kyk","c_root_id_B":"dvvvuia","created_at_utc_A":1521475984,"created_at_utc_B":1521362920,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The trouble with this notion is that Irish culture is not in need of protection, because Ireland exists, and Irish people in the US aren\u2019t oppressed.   Let me give you an example. I\u2019m Iranian. And I won\u2019t care if people in the US created a bastardized version of Norouz and butchered it. Why? Because there\u2019s a country of 80 million people (as well as a couple of other countries) that uphold norouz through their culture and institutions. In other words, Iranian culture is not in danger of erasure or dilution or destruction.   Minority cultures like black culture in the US, however, do face that danger. There\u2019s no other country than the US where American black culture exists. And often the culture of black people is just assumed to be \u201cpop culture\u201d and not belonging to them.","human_ref_B":"There are people who find Saint Patrick's Day to be offensive - usually on the grounds that St. Patrick replaced native pagan culture with Christian culture. There's also a meme going around saying that St. Patrick \"murdered\" pagans, but I'm not sure how much r\/badhistory material is in there.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":113064.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v42bq","c_root_id_B":"h4v480t","created_at_utc_A":1626047336,"created_at_utc_B":1626047418,"score_A":10,"score_B":38,"human_ref_A":"So, I find your soulmate. The woman you are most happy with, in all the world. I got her! She's yours. She knows you so well. You find her captivating. She cares about you, and she presents herself in such a way that you care about her, too. When she hugs you, she smells like a warm sunny evening, or a lazy sunday afternoon. You can relax and be yourself with her like you can no one else.  Fuck! I hit her with the \"black ray\". She's a black girl now.  Do you break up with her?","human_ref_B":"I think that your certainty that you will never find a black woman attractive is almost certainly rooted in something other than preference.  You simply can\u2019t be certain unless you know that some overriding thing other than appearance is driving.   I usually prefer white girls but I have seen MANY attractive black women.  Many.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":82.0,"score_ratio":3.8}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v3n7o","c_root_id_B":"h4v480t","created_at_utc_A":1626047112,"created_at_utc_B":1626047418,"score_A":8,"score_B":38,"human_ref_A":">But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  What experiences have led you to conclude this? What is the reasoning behind your belief that you \"wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl\"?","human_ref_B":"I think that your certainty that you will never find a black woman attractive is almost certainly rooted in something other than preference.  You simply can\u2019t be certain unless you know that some overriding thing other than appearance is driving.   I usually prefer white girls but I have seen MANY attractive black women.  Many.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":306.0,"score_ratio":4.75}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v67cs","c_root_id_B":"h4v68sh","created_at_utc_A":1626048479,"created_at_utc_B":1626048501,"score_A":12,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"\u201cBlack\u201d is a really wide net here. It\u2019s not one big monolith. There are several ethnic groups that fall under black. Is your issue with tan to dark skin? Because you\u2019ll find black women with all hair types, a mixture of different facial features, different cultural backgrounds etc.   I have a preference for black men because I\u2019m a black woman who was raised in a black community. But I would date anyone of any race if they have the right features I\u2019m attracted to, and I\u2019ve definitely observed people from different races in public that I would date\/marry.","human_ref_B":"Its definitely not racist to not be attracted to individual black women. Even if your taste is pretty consistent, almost everyone is cool with you dating whoever you want.  But if youve decided youll never be attracted to any black women before seeing them all... what could that possibly be other than prejudging based on race?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v68sh","c_root_id_B":"h4v42bq","created_at_utc_A":1626048501,"created_at_utc_B":1626047336,"score_A":20,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Its definitely not racist to not be attracted to individual black women. Even if your taste is pretty consistent, almost everyone is cool with you dating whoever you want.  But if youve decided youll never be attracted to any black women before seeing them all... what could that possibly be other than prejudging based on race?","human_ref_B":"So, I find your soulmate. The woman you are most happy with, in all the world. I got her! She's yours. She knows you so well. You find her captivating. She cares about you, and she presents herself in such a way that you care about her, too. When she hugs you, she smells like a warm sunny evening, or a lazy sunday afternoon. You can relax and be yourself with her like you can no one else.  Fuck! I hit her with the \"black ray\". She's a black girl now.  Do you break up with her?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1165.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v68sh","c_root_id_B":"h4v5pbm","created_at_utc_A":1626048501,"created_at_utc_B":1626048209,"score_A":20,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Its definitely not racist to not be attracted to individual black women. Even if your taste is pretty consistent, almost everyone is cool with you dating whoever you want.  But if youve decided youll never be attracted to any black women before seeing them all... what could that possibly be other than prejudging based on race?","human_ref_B":"Your unconscious bias is obviously at play here. Is it racist? If it effects how you treat people of that race then yes. If you wouldn\u2019t take the time to get to know someone from that race because you\u2019d never date them then yes. Racism doesn\u2019t have to be a conscious effort and this is a prime example of that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":292.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v68sh","c_root_id_B":"h4v3n7o","created_at_utc_A":1626048501,"created_at_utc_B":1626047112,"score_A":20,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Its definitely not racist to not be attracted to individual black women. Even if your taste is pretty consistent, almost everyone is cool with you dating whoever you want.  But if youve decided youll never be attracted to any black women before seeing them all... what could that possibly be other than prejudging based on race?","human_ref_B":">But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  What experiences have led you to conclude this? What is the reasoning behind your belief that you \"wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl\"?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1389.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v599e","c_root_id_B":"h4v68sh","created_at_utc_A":1626047969,"created_at_utc_B":1626048501,"score_A":3,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"So what do you not like about black women? Their features or skin color? Cuz you might find a black woman with \u201cwhiteish\u201d facial features. And vice versa","human_ref_B":"Its definitely not racist to not be attracted to individual black women. Even if your taste is pretty consistent, almost everyone is cool with you dating whoever you want.  But if youve decided youll never be attracted to any black women before seeing them all... what could that possibly be other than prejudging based on race?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":532.0,"score_ratio":6.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v68sh","c_root_id_B":"h4v4wtv","created_at_utc_A":1626048501,"created_at_utc_B":1626047785,"score_A":20,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Its definitely not racist to not be attracted to individual black women. Even if your taste is pretty consistent, almost everyone is cool with you dating whoever you want.  But if youve decided youll never be attracted to any black women before seeing them all... what could that possibly be other than prejudging based on race?","human_ref_B":"How black is too black? And by black do you mean African descent and if so what % black is too much for you to be attracted to? Or just the actual color of their skin? And if so what exact amount and color of skin pigment is the cutoff for you?  If you honestly think about those questions I think you will find that yes. Your statement is racist.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":716.0,"score_ratio":10.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v42bq","c_root_id_B":"h4v67cs","created_at_utc_A":1626047336,"created_at_utc_B":1626048479,"score_A":10,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"So, I find your soulmate. The woman you are most happy with, in all the world. I got her! She's yours. She knows you so well. You find her captivating. She cares about you, and she presents herself in such a way that you care about her, too. When she hugs you, she smells like a warm sunny evening, or a lazy sunday afternoon. You can relax and be yourself with her like you can no one else.  Fuck! I hit her with the \"black ray\". She's a black girl now.  Do you break up with her?","human_ref_B":"\u201cBlack\u201d is a really wide net here. It\u2019s not one big monolith. There are several ethnic groups that fall under black. Is your issue with tan to dark skin? Because you\u2019ll find black women with all hair types, a mixture of different facial features, different cultural backgrounds etc.   I have a preference for black men because I\u2019m a black woman who was raised in a black community. But I would date anyone of any race if they have the right features I\u2019m attracted to, and I\u2019ve definitely observed people from different races in public that I would date\/marry.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1143.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v5pbm","c_root_id_B":"h4v67cs","created_at_utc_A":1626048209,"created_at_utc_B":1626048479,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Your unconscious bias is obviously at play here. Is it racist? If it effects how you treat people of that race then yes. If you wouldn\u2019t take the time to get to know someone from that race because you\u2019d never date them then yes. Racism doesn\u2019t have to be a conscious effort and this is a prime example of that.","human_ref_B":"\u201cBlack\u201d is a really wide net here. It\u2019s not one big monolith. There are several ethnic groups that fall under black. Is your issue with tan to dark skin? Because you\u2019ll find black women with all hair types, a mixture of different facial features, different cultural backgrounds etc.   I have a preference for black men because I\u2019m a black woman who was raised in a black community. But I would date anyone of any race if they have the right features I\u2019m attracted to, and I\u2019ve definitely observed people from different races in public that I would date\/marry.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":270.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v3n7o","c_root_id_B":"h4v67cs","created_at_utc_A":1626047112,"created_at_utc_B":1626048479,"score_A":8,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":">But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  What experiences have led you to conclude this? What is the reasoning behind your belief that you \"wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl\"?","human_ref_B":"\u201cBlack\u201d is a really wide net here. It\u2019s not one big monolith. There are several ethnic groups that fall under black. Is your issue with tan to dark skin? Because you\u2019ll find black women with all hair types, a mixture of different facial features, different cultural backgrounds etc.   I have a preference for black men because I\u2019m a black woman who was raised in a black community. But I would date anyone of any race if they have the right features I\u2019m attracted to, and I\u2019ve definitely observed people from different races in public that I would date\/marry.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1367.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v67cs","c_root_id_B":"h4v599e","created_at_utc_A":1626048479,"created_at_utc_B":1626047969,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"\u201cBlack\u201d is a really wide net here. It\u2019s not one big monolith. There are several ethnic groups that fall under black. Is your issue with tan to dark skin? Because you\u2019ll find black women with all hair types, a mixture of different facial features, different cultural backgrounds etc.   I have a preference for black men because I\u2019m a black woman who was raised in a black community. But I would date anyone of any race if they have the right features I\u2019m attracted to, and I\u2019ve definitely observed people from different races in public that I would date\/marry.","human_ref_B":"So what do you not like about black women? Their features or skin color? Cuz you might find a black woman with \u201cwhiteish\u201d facial features. And vice versa","labels":1,"seconds_difference":510.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v67cs","c_root_id_B":"h4v4wtv","created_at_utc_A":1626048479,"created_at_utc_B":1626047785,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"\u201cBlack\u201d is a really wide net here. It\u2019s not one big monolith. There are several ethnic groups that fall under black. Is your issue with tan to dark skin? Because you\u2019ll find black women with all hair types, a mixture of different facial features, different cultural backgrounds etc.   I have a preference for black men because I\u2019m a black woman who was raised in a black community. But I would date anyone of any race if they have the right features I\u2019m attracted to, and I\u2019ve definitely observed people from different races in public that I would date\/marry.","human_ref_B":"How black is too black? And by black do you mean African descent and if so what % black is too much for you to be attracted to? Or just the actual color of their skin? And if so what exact amount and color of skin pigment is the cutoff for you?  If you honestly think about those questions I think you will find that yes. Your statement is racist.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":694.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4w21tk","c_root_id_B":"h4v832h","created_at_utc_A":1626067507,"created_at_utc_B":1626049496,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   You are saying that being black makes women inherently unattractive to you, regardless of their personal qualities. What makes being black such an important quality that it\u2019s worth avoiding dating someone over that specifically if it\u2019s not rooted in some kind of prejudice against black women?  > I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays  Homosexuality is mostly innate. Race preferences are not. They are influenced by personal and societal prejudices that shape how we view ideal standards of beauty. For a very long time, black women have been deemed universally undesirable because of deeply ingrained biases against them in our media and culture. The pinnacle of female beauty has always centered around white women, specifically, in contrast to black women. Meanwhile women of other races and ethnicities, such as Asians and (non-black) Latinas, are hyperfetishized, which isn\u2019t any better. So no, saying you\u2019re not attracted to black women is not like being gay. It is a result of centuries of black women being depicted as less desirable than other races.","human_ref_B":"Interestingly enough this is called the \"preference paradox\" which means that disclosing racial preference in attraction is seen as racist, even by people who overtly claim it's not.   There was an actual study done where gay men would disclose a racial preference (either strongly or softly) in mock dating profiles. Participants rated people who disclosed racial preference as more racist, less attractive, less dateable and would be less willing to initiate relationships with them. Interestingly enough this effect would appear even in participants who said that having racial preference is normal, they would still consistently rate people with racial preference lower than those with no racial preference.  Findings suggest that disclosing racial preference in the domain of attraction is interpreted as deflecting racism, even by those who ostensibly believe that people can have non-racist racial preferences.  So the thing is, no matter whether having a racial preference is actually racist or not doesn't really matter, because you will be seen as racist by virtually everybody. This makes sense when you think about it. Because what is the difference between you and an actual racist?  You both would have identical dating preferences, and you both would express them in the same way. By stating that you have a racial preference.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18011.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4w21tk","c_root_id_B":"h4v5pbm","created_at_utc_A":1626067507,"created_at_utc_B":1626048209,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   You are saying that being black makes women inherently unattractive to you, regardless of their personal qualities. What makes being black such an important quality that it\u2019s worth avoiding dating someone over that specifically if it\u2019s not rooted in some kind of prejudice against black women?  > I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays  Homosexuality is mostly innate. Race preferences are not. They are influenced by personal and societal prejudices that shape how we view ideal standards of beauty. For a very long time, black women have been deemed universally undesirable because of deeply ingrained biases against them in our media and culture. The pinnacle of female beauty has always centered around white women, specifically, in contrast to black women. Meanwhile women of other races and ethnicities, such as Asians and (non-black) Latinas, are hyperfetishized, which isn\u2019t any better. So no, saying you\u2019re not attracted to black women is not like being gay. It is a result of centuries of black women being depicted as less desirable than other races.","human_ref_B":"Your unconscious bias is obviously at play here. Is it racist? If it effects how you treat people of that race then yes. If you wouldn\u2019t take the time to get to know someone from that race because you\u2019d never date them then yes. Racism doesn\u2019t have to be a conscious effort and this is a prime example of that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19298.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4w21tk","c_root_id_B":"h4v3n7o","created_at_utc_A":1626067507,"created_at_utc_B":1626047112,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"> But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   You are saying that being black makes women inherently unattractive to you, regardless of their personal qualities. What makes being black such an important quality that it\u2019s worth avoiding dating someone over that specifically if it\u2019s not rooted in some kind of prejudice against black women?  > I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays  Homosexuality is mostly innate. Race preferences are not. They are influenced by personal and societal prejudices that shape how we view ideal standards of beauty. For a very long time, black women have been deemed universally undesirable because of deeply ingrained biases against them in our media and culture. The pinnacle of female beauty has always centered around white women, specifically, in contrast to black women. Meanwhile women of other races and ethnicities, such as Asians and (non-black) Latinas, are hyperfetishized, which isn\u2019t any better. So no, saying you\u2019re not attracted to black women is not like being gay. It is a result of centuries of black women being depicted as less desirable than other races.","human_ref_B":">But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  What experiences have led you to conclude this? What is the reasoning behind your belief that you \"wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl\"?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20395.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4w21tk","c_root_id_B":"h4v6cgk","created_at_utc_A":1626067507,"created_at_utc_B":1626048557,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   You are saying that being black makes women inherently unattractive to you, regardless of their personal qualities. What makes being black such an important quality that it\u2019s worth avoiding dating someone over that specifically if it\u2019s not rooted in some kind of prejudice against black women?  > I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays  Homosexuality is mostly innate. Race preferences are not. They are influenced by personal and societal prejudices that shape how we view ideal standards of beauty. For a very long time, black women have been deemed universally undesirable because of deeply ingrained biases against them in our media and culture. The pinnacle of female beauty has always centered around white women, specifically, in contrast to black women. Meanwhile women of other races and ethnicities, such as Asians and (non-black) Latinas, are hyperfetishized, which isn\u2019t any better. So no, saying you\u2019re not attracted to black women is not like being gay. It is a result of centuries of black women being depicted as less desirable than other races.","human_ref_B":">I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  These two statements contradict each other.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18950.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4w21tk","c_root_id_B":"h4v599e","created_at_utc_A":1626067507,"created_at_utc_B":1626047969,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   You are saying that being black makes women inherently unattractive to you, regardless of their personal qualities. What makes being black such an important quality that it\u2019s worth avoiding dating someone over that specifically if it\u2019s not rooted in some kind of prejudice against black women?  > I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays  Homosexuality is mostly innate. Race preferences are not. They are influenced by personal and societal prejudices that shape how we view ideal standards of beauty. For a very long time, black women have been deemed universally undesirable because of deeply ingrained biases against them in our media and culture. The pinnacle of female beauty has always centered around white women, specifically, in contrast to black women. Meanwhile women of other races and ethnicities, such as Asians and (non-black) Latinas, are hyperfetishized, which isn\u2019t any better. So no, saying you\u2019re not attracted to black women is not like being gay. It is a result of centuries of black women being depicted as less desirable than other races.","human_ref_B":"So what do you not like about black women? Their features or skin color? Cuz you might find a black woman with \u201cwhiteish\u201d facial features. And vice versa","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19538.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4w21tk","c_root_id_B":"h4vbhfi","created_at_utc_A":1626067507,"created_at_utc_B":1626051302,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   You are saying that being black makes women inherently unattractive to you, regardless of their personal qualities. What makes being black such an important quality that it\u2019s worth avoiding dating someone over that specifically if it\u2019s not rooted in some kind of prejudice against black women?  > I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays  Homosexuality is mostly innate. Race preferences are not. They are influenced by personal and societal prejudices that shape how we view ideal standards of beauty. For a very long time, black women have been deemed universally undesirable because of deeply ingrained biases against them in our media and culture. The pinnacle of female beauty has always centered around white women, specifically, in contrast to black women. Meanwhile women of other races and ethnicities, such as Asians and (non-black) Latinas, are hyperfetishized, which isn\u2019t any better. So no, saying you\u2019re not attracted to black women is not like being gay. It is a result of centuries of black women being depicted as less desirable than other races.","human_ref_B":"It's amazing to me the lengths that people will go to to convince themselves they are \"not racist\".    Let's break it down.  There are basically four dating scenarios that can exist for you:  1. **In a happy relationship**: If this is the case, focus on your happiness and not fucking it up.  2. **In an unhappy relationship**: If this is the case, focus on getting out the relationship with as little strife as possible.  3. **Happily single**: If this is the case, just go on having an awesome life.  4. **Unhappily single**: If this is the case, try to expand your horizons and try more new things, thus increasing your exposing to new potential partners.   Is there anything about black people or white people or Asians up there?  No.  Why not?  Because it ***doesn't matter***.    If you're not attracted to ***any person***, don't date them.  No one is going to force you into a relationship with someone you don't want to be with in our era.    But here you are asking a group of total strangers if it makes you racist to automatically exclude people with certain genetic characteristics from your pool of potential partners.  Why are you doing that?  I reckon, it's because you are racist.  You are clearly really focused on hypothetical questions of dating as it comes to race.  Why else would you be doing this?  So, I'm going to recommend that you do something radical.  Come out of the closet and just be racist.  It seems to me that there is so much anxiety in the U.S. right now about identifying what is and is not racist.  It would be so much easier racists would just self-identify so the rest of us can just move forward.   What do you think?  Give it a try?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16205.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v4wtv","c_root_id_B":"h4w21tk","created_at_utc_A":1626047785,"created_at_utc_B":1626067507,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"How black is too black? And by black do you mean African descent and if so what % black is too much for you to be attracted to? Or just the actual color of their skin? And if so what exact amount and color of skin pigment is the cutoff for you?  If you honestly think about those questions I think you will find that yes. Your statement is racist.","human_ref_B":"> But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   You are saying that being black makes women inherently unattractive to you, regardless of their personal qualities. What makes being black such an important quality that it\u2019s worth avoiding dating someone over that specifically if it\u2019s not rooted in some kind of prejudice against black women?  > I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays  Homosexuality is mostly innate. Race preferences are not. They are influenced by personal and societal prejudices that shape how we view ideal standards of beauty. For a very long time, black women have been deemed universally undesirable because of deeply ingrained biases against them in our media and culture. The pinnacle of female beauty has always centered around white women, specifically, in contrast to black women. Meanwhile women of other races and ethnicities, such as Asians and (non-black) Latinas, are hyperfetishized, which isn\u2019t any better. So no, saying you\u2019re not attracted to black women is not like being gay. It is a result of centuries of black women being depicted as less desirable than other races.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19722.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4vhh8y","c_root_id_B":"h4w21tk","created_at_utc_A":1626054583,"created_at_utc_B":1626067507,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":">But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  What specific trait does every black woman share that isn't attractive to you?","human_ref_B":"> But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   You are saying that being black makes women inherently unattractive to you, regardless of their personal qualities. What makes being black such an important quality that it\u2019s worth avoiding dating someone over that specifically if it\u2019s not rooted in some kind of prejudice against black women?  > I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays  Homosexuality is mostly innate. Race preferences are not. They are influenced by personal and societal prejudices that shape how we view ideal standards of beauty. For a very long time, black women have been deemed universally undesirable because of deeply ingrained biases against them in our media and culture. The pinnacle of female beauty has always centered around white women, specifically, in contrast to black women. Meanwhile women of other races and ethnicities, such as Asians and (non-black) Latinas, are hyperfetishized, which isn\u2019t any better. So no, saying you\u2019re not attracted to black women is not like being gay. It is a result of centuries of black women being depicted as less desirable than other races.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12924.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v3n7o","c_root_id_B":"h4v42bq","created_at_utc_A":1626047112,"created_at_utc_B":1626047336,"score_A":8,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":">But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  What experiences have led you to conclude this? What is the reasoning behind your belief that you \"wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl\"?","human_ref_B":"So, I find your soulmate. The woman you are most happy with, in all the world. I got her! She's yours. She knows you so well. You find her captivating. She cares about you, and she presents herself in such a way that you care about her, too. When she hugs you, she smells like a warm sunny evening, or a lazy sunday afternoon. You can relax and be yourself with her like you can no one else.  Fuck! I hit her with the \"black ray\". She's a black girl now.  Do you break up with her?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":224.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v832h","c_root_id_B":"h4v5pbm","created_at_utc_A":1626049496,"created_at_utc_B":1626048209,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Interestingly enough this is called the \"preference paradox\" which means that disclosing racial preference in attraction is seen as racist, even by people who overtly claim it's not.   There was an actual study done where gay men would disclose a racial preference (either strongly or softly) in mock dating profiles. Participants rated people who disclosed racial preference as more racist, less attractive, less dateable and would be less willing to initiate relationships with them. Interestingly enough this effect would appear even in participants who said that having racial preference is normal, they would still consistently rate people with racial preference lower than those with no racial preference.  Findings suggest that disclosing racial preference in the domain of attraction is interpreted as deflecting racism, even by those who ostensibly believe that people can have non-racist racial preferences.  So the thing is, no matter whether having a racial preference is actually racist or not doesn't really matter, because you will be seen as racist by virtually everybody. This makes sense when you think about it. Because what is the difference between you and an actual racist?  You both would have identical dating preferences, and you both would express them in the same way. By stating that you have a racial preference.","human_ref_B":"Your unconscious bias is obviously at play here. Is it racist? If it effects how you treat people of that race then yes. If you wouldn\u2019t take the time to get to know someone from that race because you\u2019d never date them then yes. Racism doesn\u2019t have to be a conscious effort and this is a prime example of that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1287.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v832h","c_root_id_B":"h4v599e","created_at_utc_A":1626049496,"created_at_utc_B":1626047969,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Interestingly enough this is called the \"preference paradox\" which means that disclosing racial preference in attraction is seen as racist, even by people who overtly claim it's not.   There was an actual study done where gay men would disclose a racial preference (either strongly or softly) in mock dating profiles. Participants rated people who disclosed racial preference as more racist, less attractive, less dateable and would be less willing to initiate relationships with them. Interestingly enough this effect would appear even in participants who said that having racial preference is normal, they would still consistently rate people with racial preference lower than those with no racial preference.  Findings suggest that disclosing racial preference in the domain of attraction is interpreted as deflecting racism, even by those who ostensibly believe that people can have non-racist racial preferences.  So the thing is, no matter whether having a racial preference is actually racist or not doesn't really matter, because you will be seen as racist by virtually everybody. This makes sense when you think about it. Because what is the difference between you and an actual racist?  You both would have identical dating preferences, and you both would express them in the same way. By stating that you have a racial preference.","human_ref_B":"So what do you not like about black women? Their features or skin color? Cuz you might find a black woman with \u201cwhiteish\u201d facial features. And vice versa","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1527.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v4wtv","c_root_id_B":"h4v832h","created_at_utc_A":1626047785,"created_at_utc_B":1626049496,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"How black is too black? And by black do you mean African descent and if so what % black is too much for you to be attracted to? Or just the actual color of their skin? And if so what exact amount and color of skin pigment is the cutoff for you?  If you honestly think about those questions I think you will find that yes. Your statement is racist.","human_ref_B":"Interestingly enough this is called the \"preference paradox\" which means that disclosing racial preference in attraction is seen as racist, even by people who overtly claim it's not.   There was an actual study done where gay men would disclose a racial preference (either strongly or softly) in mock dating profiles. Participants rated people who disclosed racial preference as more racist, less attractive, less dateable and would be less willing to initiate relationships with them. Interestingly enough this effect would appear even in participants who said that having racial preference is normal, they would still consistently rate people with racial preference lower than those with no racial preference.  Findings suggest that disclosing racial preference in the domain of attraction is interpreted as deflecting racism, even by those who ostensibly believe that people can have non-racist racial preferences.  So the thing is, no matter whether having a racial preference is actually racist or not doesn't really matter, because you will be seen as racist by virtually everybody. This makes sense when you think about it. Because what is the difference between you and an actual racist?  You both would have identical dating preferences, and you both would express them in the same way. By stating that you have a racial preference.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1711.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v5pbm","c_root_id_B":"h4v6cgk","created_at_utc_A":1626048209,"created_at_utc_B":1626048557,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Your unconscious bias is obviously at play here. Is it racist? If it effects how you treat people of that race then yes. If you wouldn\u2019t take the time to get to know someone from that race because you\u2019d never date them then yes. Racism doesn\u2019t have to be a conscious effort and this is a prime example of that.","human_ref_B":">I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  These two statements contradict each other.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":348.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v5pbm","c_root_id_B":"h4v599e","created_at_utc_A":1626048209,"created_at_utc_B":1626047969,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Your unconscious bias is obviously at play here. Is it racist? If it effects how you treat people of that race then yes. If you wouldn\u2019t take the time to get to know someone from that race because you\u2019d never date them then yes. Racism doesn\u2019t have to be a conscious effort and this is a prime example of that.","human_ref_B":"So what do you not like about black women? Their features or skin color? Cuz you might find a black woman with \u201cwhiteish\u201d facial features. And vice versa","labels":1,"seconds_difference":240.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v5pbm","c_root_id_B":"h4v4wtv","created_at_utc_A":1626048209,"created_at_utc_B":1626047785,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Your unconscious bias is obviously at play here. Is it racist? If it effects how you treat people of that race then yes. If you wouldn\u2019t take the time to get to know someone from that race because you\u2019d never date them then yes. Racism doesn\u2019t have to be a conscious effort and this is a prime example of that.","human_ref_B":"How black is too black? And by black do you mean African descent and if so what % black is too much for you to be attracted to? Or just the actual color of their skin? And if so what exact amount and color of skin pigment is the cutoff for you?  If you honestly think about those questions I think you will find that yes. Your statement is racist.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":424.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v599e","c_root_id_B":"h4v6cgk","created_at_utc_A":1626047969,"created_at_utc_B":1626048557,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"So what do you not like about black women? Their features or skin color? Cuz you might find a black woman with \u201cwhiteish\u201d facial features. And vice versa","human_ref_B":">I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  These two statements contradict each other.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":588.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v4wtv","c_root_id_B":"h4v6cgk","created_at_utc_A":1626047785,"created_at_utc_B":1626048557,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"How black is too black? And by black do you mean African descent and if so what % black is too much for you to be attracted to? Or just the actual color of their skin? And if so what exact amount and color of skin pigment is the cutoff for you?  If you honestly think about those questions I think you will find that yes. Your statement is racist.","human_ref_B":">I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  These two statements contradict each other.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":772.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v599e","c_root_id_B":"h4xbcmx","created_at_utc_A":1626047969,"created_at_utc_B":1626101107,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"So what do you not like about black women? Their features or skin color? Cuz you might find a black woman with \u201cwhiteish\u201d facial features. And vice versa","human_ref_B":"You *are* a racist. Just not in the way people generally dislike you for.  When people think of racists, they tend to think of shitty actions only done by racists, like holding oppressive, racist ideologies, or discriminating against certain races without valid reason.  But when it comes to attraction, it's entirely subjective, so yeah, you may observe a bias going this day and that which you don't like, but that's what you gotta work with. Unlike with ideologies, or conscious actions, your preference is not your choice.  So I think it's good for people to **acknowledge** where they're biased, so they can effectively cope with that circumstance. But when it comes to physical attraction, you can't really get around it without eliminating the bias, which is no easy task.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":53138.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v4wtv","c_root_id_B":"h4v599e","created_at_utc_A":1626047785,"created_at_utc_B":1626047969,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"How black is too black? And by black do you mean African descent and if so what % black is too much for you to be attracted to? Or just the actual color of their skin? And if so what exact amount and color of skin pigment is the cutoff for you?  If you honestly think about those questions I think you will find that yes. Your statement is racist.","human_ref_B":"So what do you not like about black women? Their features or skin color? Cuz you might find a black woman with \u201cwhiteish\u201d facial features. And vice versa","labels":0,"seconds_difference":184.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4xbcmx","c_root_id_B":"h4vbhfi","created_at_utc_A":1626101107,"created_at_utc_B":1626051302,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You *are* a racist. Just not in the way people generally dislike you for.  When people think of racists, they tend to think of shitty actions only done by racists, like holding oppressive, racist ideologies, or discriminating against certain races without valid reason.  But when it comes to attraction, it's entirely subjective, so yeah, you may observe a bias going this day and that which you don't like, but that's what you gotta work with. Unlike with ideologies, or conscious actions, your preference is not your choice.  So I think it's good for people to **acknowledge** where they're biased, so they can effectively cope with that circumstance. But when it comes to physical attraction, you can't really get around it without eliminating the bias, which is no easy task.","human_ref_B":"It's amazing to me the lengths that people will go to to convince themselves they are \"not racist\".    Let's break it down.  There are basically four dating scenarios that can exist for you:  1. **In a happy relationship**: If this is the case, focus on your happiness and not fucking it up.  2. **In an unhappy relationship**: If this is the case, focus on getting out the relationship with as little strife as possible.  3. **Happily single**: If this is the case, just go on having an awesome life.  4. **Unhappily single**: If this is the case, try to expand your horizons and try more new things, thus increasing your exposing to new potential partners.   Is there anything about black people or white people or Asians up there?  No.  Why not?  Because it ***doesn't matter***.    If you're not attracted to ***any person***, don't date them.  No one is going to force you into a relationship with someone you don't want to be with in our era.    But here you are asking a group of total strangers if it makes you racist to automatically exclude people with certain genetic characteristics from your pool of potential partners.  Why are you doing that?  I reckon, it's because you are racist.  You are clearly really focused on hypothetical questions of dating as it comes to race.  Why else would you be doing this?  So, I'm going to recommend that you do something radical.  Come out of the closet and just be racist.  It seems to me that there is so much anxiety in the U.S. right now about identifying what is and is not racist.  It would be so much easier racists would just self-identify so the rest of us can just move forward.   What do you think?  Give it a try?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":49805.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v4wtv","c_root_id_B":"h4vbhfi","created_at_utc_A":1626047785,"created_at_utc_B":1626051302,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"How black is too black? And by black do you mean African descent and if so what % black is too much for you to be attracted to? Or just the actual color of their skin? And if so what exact amount and color of skin pigment is the cutoff for you?  If you honestly think about those questions I think you will find that yes. Your statement is racist.","human_ref_B":"It's amazing to me the lengths that people will go to to convince themselves they are \"not racist\".    Let's break it down.  There are basically four dating scenarios that can exist for you:  1. **In a happy relationship**: If this is the case, focus on your happiness and not fucking it up.  2. **In an unhappy relationship**: If this is the case, focus on getting out the relationship with as little strife as possible.  3. **Happily single**: If this is the case, just go on having an awesome life.  4. **Unhappily single**: If this is the case, try to expand your horizons and try more new things, thus increasing your exposing to new potential partners.   Is there anything about black people or white people or Asians up there?  No.  Why not?  Because it ***doesn't matter***.    If you're not attracted to ***any person***, don't date them.  No one is going to force you into a relationship with someone you don't want to be with in our era.    But here you are asking a group of total strangers if it makes you racist to automatically exclude people with certain genetic characteristics from your pool of potential partners.  Why are you doing that?  I reckon, it's because you are racist.  You are clearly really focused on hypothetical questions of dating as it comes to race.  Why else would you be doing this?  So, I'm going to recommend that you do something radical.  Come out of the closet and just be racist.  It seems to me that there is so much anxiety in the U.S. right now about identifying what is and is not racist.  It would be so much easier racists would just self-identify so the rest of us can just move forward.   What do you think?  Give it a try?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3517.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4xbcmx","c_root_id_B":"h4v4wtv","created_at_utc_A":1626101107,"created_at_utc_B":1626047785,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You *are* a racist. Just not in the way people generally dislike you for.  When people think of racists, they tend to think of shitty actions only done by racists, like holding oppressive, racist ideologies, or discriminating against certain races without valid reason.  But when it comes to attraction, it's entirely subjective, so yeah, you may observe a bias going this day and that which you don't like, but that's what you gotta work with. Unlike with ideologies, or conscious actions, your preference is not your choice.  So I think it's good for people to **acknowledge** where they're biased, so they can effectively cope with that circumstance. But when it comes to physical attraction, you can't really get around it without eliminating the bias, which is no easy task.","human_ref_B":"How black is too black? And by black do you mean African descent and if so what % black is too much for you to be attracted to? Or just the actual color of their skin? And if so what exact amount and color of skin pigment is the cutoff for you?  If you honestly think about those questions I think you will find that yes. Your statement is racist.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":53322.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4vhh8y","c_root_id_B":"h4xbcmx","created_at_utc_A":1626054583,"created_at_utc_B":1626101107,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  What specific trait does every black woman share that isn't attractive to you?","human_ref_B":"You *are* a racist. Just not in the way people generally dislike you for.  When people think of racists, they tend to think of shitty actions only done by racists, like holding oppressive, racist ideologies, or discriminating against certain races without valid reason.  But when it comes to attraction, it's entirely subjective, so yeah, you may observe a bias going this day and that which you don't like, but that's what you gotta work with. Unlike with ideologies, or conscious actions, your preference is not your choice.  So I think it's good for people to **acknowledge** where they're biased, so they can effectively cope with that circumstance. But when it comes to physical attraction, you can't really get around it without eliminating the bias, which is no easy task.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":46524.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4xbcmx","c_root_id_B":"h4w32rg","created_at_utc_A":1626101107,"created_at_utc_B":1626068310,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You *are* a racist. Just not in the way people generally dislike you for.  When people think of racists, they tend to think of shitty actions only done by racists, like holding oppressive, racist ideologies, or discriminating against certain races without valid reason.  But when it comes to attraction, it's entirely subjective, so yeah, you may observe a bias going this day and that which you don't like, but that's what you gotta work with. Unlike with ideologies, or conscious actions, your preference is not your choice.  So I think it's good for people to **acknowledge** where they're biased, so they can effectively cope with that circumstance. But when it comes to physical attraction, you can't really get around it without eliminating the bias, which is no easy task.","human_ref_B":"Being racist means defining people by their race. The thing that does make you racist is if you think about a person's race *before* considering whether you find them attractive. Also that you consider an entire race as not attractive.  You can't control who you find attractive, but you can keep an open mind and avoid the unnecessary categorical decision about an entire group of people and consider each person on their own. Perhaps you'll be surprised at some point...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32797.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4wcnuq","c_root_id_B":"h4xbcmx","created_at_utc_A":1626076681,"created_at_utc_B":1626101107,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race  Shouldn't the reason matter? What if someone says they're not attracted to a person because they believe that they belong to a subhuman, inferior race?","human_ref_B":"You *are* a racist. Just not in the way people generally dislike you for.  When people think of racists, they tend to think of shitty actions only done by racists, like holding oppressive, racist ideologies, or discriminating against certain races without valid reason.  But when it comes to attraction, it's entirely subjective, so yeah, you may observe a bias going this day and that which you don't like, but that's what you gotta work with. Unlike with ideologies, or conscious actions, your preference is not your choice.  So I think it's good for people to **acknowledge** where they're biased, so they can effectively cope with that circumstance. But when it comes to physical attraction, you can't really get around it without eliminating the bias, which is no easy task.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24426.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4wioyu","c_root_id_B":"h4xbcmx","created_at_utc_A":1626082508,"created_at_utc_B":1626101107,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I don't think it's necessarily racist not to be attracted to people of a certain race. I do think it makes you a racist to go around proudly proclaiming your non attraction. Why are you so proud of it? Why are you so eager to share how much you don't like black women?","human_ref_B":"You *are* a racist. Just not in the way people generally dislike you for.  When people think of racists, they tend to think of shitty actions only done by racists, like holding oppressive, racist ideologies, or discriminating against certain races without valid reason.  But when it comes to attraction, it's entirely subjective, so yeah, you may observe a bias going this day and that which you don't like, but that's what you gotta work with. Unlike with ideologies, or conscious actions, your preference is not your choice.  So I think it's good for people to **acknowledge** where they're biased, so they can effectively cope with that circumstance. But when it comes to physical attraction, you can't really get around it without eliminating the bias, which is no easy task.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18599.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4wkxm7","c_root_id_B":"h4xbcmx","created_at_utc_A":1626084587,"created_at_utc_B":1626101107,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Are you saying all black women look the same? Is there something about black skin specifically that turns you off? Why do you think there won't exist a black woman that could?","human_ref_B":"You *are* a racist. Just not in the way people generally dislike you for.  When people think of racists, they tend to think of shitty actions only done by racists, like holding oppressive, racist ideologies, or discriminating against certain races without valid reason.  But when it comes to attraction, it's entirely subjective, so yeah, you may observe a bias going this day and that which you don't like, but that's what you gotta work with. Unlike with ideologies, or conscious actions, your preference is not your choice.  So I think it's good for people to **acknowledge** where they're biased, so they can effectively cope with that circumstance. But when it comes to physical attraction, you can't really get around it without eliminating the bias, which is no easy task.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16520.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4v4wtv","c_root_id_B":"h526hyz","created_at_utc_A":1626047785,"created_at_utc_B":1626198179,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"How black is too black? And by black do you mean African descent and if so what % black is too much for you to be attracted to? Or just the actual color of their skin? And if so what exact amount and color of skin pigment is the cutoff for you?  If you honestly think about those questions I think you will find that yes. Your statement is racist.","human_ref_B":"Hmmm, gay men aren't into women because the thing that all women have in common is that they are not men.  You are not into black women because the thing they all have in common is they are not.... what exactly?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":150394.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4vhh8y","c_root_id_B":"h526hyz","created_at_utc_A":1626054583,"created_at_utc_B":1626198179,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.  What specific trait does every black woman share that isn't attractive to you?","human_ref_B":"Hmmm, gay men aren't into women because the thing that all women have in common is that they are not men.  You are not into black women because the thing they all have in common is they are not.... what exactly?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":143596.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4w32rg","c_root_id_B":"h526hyz","created_at_utc_A":1626068310,"created_at_utc_B":1626198179,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Being racist means defining people by their race. The thing that does make you racist is if you think about a person's race *before* considering whether you find them attractive. Also that you consider an entire race as not attractive.  You can't control who you find attractive, but you can keep an open mind and avoid the unnecessary categorical decision about an entire group of people and consider each person on their own. Perhaps you'll be surprised at some point...","human_ref_B":"Hmmm, gay men aren't into women because the thing that all women have in common is that they are not men.  You are not into black women because the thing they all have in common is they are not.... what exactly?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":129869.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h526hyz","c_root_id_B":"h4wcnuq","created_at_utc_A":1626198179,"created_at_utc_B":1626076681,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hmmm, gay men aren't into women because the thing that all women have in common is that they are not men.  You are not into black women because the thing they all have in common is they are not.... what exactly?","human_ref_B":"> I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race  Shouldn't the reason matter? What if someone says they're not attracted to a person because they believe that they belong to a subhuman, inferior race?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":121498.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h4wioyu","c_root_id_B":"h526hyz","created_at_utc_A":1626082508,"created_at_utc_B":1626198179,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't think it's necessarily racist not to be attracted to people of a certain race. I do think it makes you a racist to go around proudly proclaiming your non attraction. Why are you so proud of it? Why are you so eager to share how much you don't like black women?","human_ref_B":"Hmmm, gay men aren't into women because the thing that all women have in common is that they are not men.  You are not into black women because the thing they all have in common is they are not.... what exactly?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":115671.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"oifg1i","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: I don\u2019t think it makes you a racist if you don\u2019t find a certain race attractive and wouldn\u2019t wanna date someone from that race I\u2019m originally from a pretty racist country and have lived there most of my life recently moving to America for uni , so the whole concept of racism is pretty new to me due to my country having no black people living in it,in my 18 years living there I maybe saw 1\/2 black people   I personally don\u2019t think there\u2019s a biological difference between black and white people and that either is superior over the other ,it doesn\u2019t bother me if someone\u2019s black or white and I don\u2019t think I act any different around either or towards them   But I know that I wouldn\u2019t ever date a black girl not because there is something inherently wrong with them it\u2019s just i don\u2019t find them attractive and I know they aren\u2019t for me.   I think it\u2019s same concept as for example if a gay person says they would not want to date a women ,is it because they believe there is something wrong with women ,no it\u2019s cause they don\u2019t find them attractive and I dont think that makes gays","c_root_id_A":"h526hyz","c_root_id_B":"h4wkxm7","created_at_utc_A":1626198179,"created_at_utc_B":1626084587,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hmmm, gay men aren't into women because the thing that all women have in common is that they are not men.  You are not into black women because the thing they all have in common is they are not.... what exactly?","human_ref_B":"Are you saying all black women look the same? Is there something about black skin specifically that turns you off? Why do you think there won't exist a black woman that could?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":113592.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11vakn","c_root_id_B":"g11wwrm","created_at_utc_A":1597105541,"created_at_utc_B":1597106446,"score_A":13,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"This might not make much sense but bare with me.  In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it.   Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced.   When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied.  When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men.  So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to \"what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women.\"","human_ref_B":"I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman.   If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":905.0,"score_ratio":2.1538461538}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11lqfm","c_root_id_B":"g11wwrm","created_at_utc_A":1597100322,"created_at_utc_B":1597106446,"score_A":11,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"The real problem is that far too many misandrists adopt the guise of feminists, and the real feminists are generally not very quick to vocally object to it.   We see government officials trying to ensure men accused of rape or other sex charges are railroaded out of colleges without due process or fair hearings. Where are the voices calling for fair hearings, that treat men and women as equally responsible for their actions?   When there is a good job that is Male dominated, everyone is eager to get women into it. But when a dangerous, or hard job is male dominated, we can only hear a small handful of voices saying that women should have an equal share of those jobs too...  We hear all about toxic masculinity, but at the same time, we expect men to hold doors for women, pay on the first date, not hit women, etc...   And lets not even get into the courts and criminal justice system...  You can't have it both ways. Either we go for equality, or we recognize there are gender roles, and we try to balance those out. Hitting women is a micro-chasm for this. If women are equal, they don't deserve special protections. In which case, if a woman hits a man, that man should have just as much right to hit back, as if he had been hit by another man.   We should all be for Egalitarianism, and that means working for more fair treatment of both men and women. And we shouldn't try to pick and choose only the equality that benefits our gender.","human_ref_B":"I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman.   If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6124.0,"score_ratio":2.5454545455}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11wwrm","c_root_id_B":"g11qpmm","created_at_utc_A":1597106446,"created_at_utc_B":1597102986,"score_A":28,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman.   If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way.","human_ref_B":"Feminist here.    There are a number of ways that our society is misandrist. The first thing that comes to mind is how we normalize violence against men. Think of how many times the heroine in books or movies knees, slaps, punches or throws a drink in her cheating dirtbag SO's face. It's literally physical violence - a crime - and we're supposed to cheer. It makes me freaking scream. And I am female. I can imagine that men feel it more keenly than I do.  I can see someone who isn't good with words respond to an argument for gender equality by trying to point out that inequality between the sexes doesn't just disadvantage women, but ineloquently shouting \"then men can hit women too!\" This person wouldn't mean that women should be kneed, slapped, punched or have a drink thrown in their face, but rather that it's not all rainbows and lollipops for men either.   And the easy response to that is, \"no. No one should be hitting anyone, regardless of genitalia.\"  Now if they guy responses, \"yes, yes we should,\" then that's another story.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3460.0,"score_ratio":3.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11om1u","c_root_id_B":"g11wwrm","created_at_utc_A":1597101844,"created_at_utc_B":1597106446,"score_A":7,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"My response will start out with not directly debating your idea, but bear with me.  >When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities  Okay, so let's look at your opportunities you mention.  >in the eyes of the law,  Women generally get less harsh sentencing for the same crimes, and they will usually win child custody.  >in healthcare,  Health care specifically relating to women, such as breast cancer, is far better funded than health care relating to men, such as testicular cancer. The only exception that everyone always brings up are abortions, but that is due to the ethical considerations - plus, it is definitely talked about, so it's not like this is some kind of taboo or ignored topic. Unlike suicide rates for men. Furthermore, support centers for women, be it due to domestic violence, sexual abuse, or any other reason, are much more common than the same for men.  >in education  The majority of university graduates are women.  >in STEM fields  This is not due to an inequality of opportunity, though. As I mentioned, most university graduates are already women, so it's not like universities discriminate based on sex (rather discrimination in the opposite direction is more likely, but that isn't the point here).   >instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves  Because there is no such consideration for men. People tend to dislike or ignore movements that make no difference to their own person.  >Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  I'll refer to my previous points.  But in broader terms, there is an argument to be made that women are already superior to men in the general society, specifically because of the things I mentioned. I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, but it's not as clear cut as \"Women are always disadvantaged\", and saying that makes you seem ignorant and naive.  You could also look at the vast number of experiments people have done. Put two actors in a public place, one severely insulting and abusing the other. If it's the man that is doing the abusing people will generally stop and intervene. Reverse the rolls and suddenly you have at best people who ignore it, and at worst people who laugh.   And now onto my actual point.  >If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk  There is no reason to assume that this is *the first thing* they think of.   It's absolutely possible that they've had all these thoughts. That they might even have discussed them with others in the past. Depending on who they spoke to (and who the response of \"so men can hit women\" is aimed at) they might just not think that an actual discussion will get any results, that the one they respond to will just deflect or ignore them. Disillusionment.","human_ref_B":"I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman.   If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4602.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11wwrm","c_root_id_B":"g11jjbg","created_at_utc_A":1597106446,"created_at_utc_B":1597099188,"score_A":28,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman.   If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way.","human_ref_B":">I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.   Women ARE smaller and physically weaker. To say that they aren't is just denying objective reality. It does make sense to argue though that if a woman hits a man, she should expect to get a proportional response and that may include getting hit back. Women should not get total freedom from responsibility for their actions. All too often society acts like they should and that is wrong. I think the right of men to defend themselves is really the key point and not entitlement to violence.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7258.0,"score_ratio":5.6}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11ixsm","c_root_id_B":"g11wwrm","created_at_utc_A":1597098884,"created_at_utc_B":1597106446,"score_A":4,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Sorry, but most of what you\u2019ve mentioned there isn\u2019t right, in the eyes of the law , men are treated massively worse, In healthcare , men\u2019s cancers are not given as much funding, and men are still less likely to seek help of any kind, heart disease, sports is a no brainier, in the job market. Men are not payed more than women, in fact young women out earn men of the same age group, and retire earlier, they also are more likely to buy a house. The wage gap is not \u2018women get payed less\u2019 there are so many variables and the one with the biggest  effect is choice. And would women really want to do the jobs most men do which pay well, they are dangerous and yucky , and without them society would have fallen long ago, stem fields are not minority women, in fact women are the majority in higher education, with the teacher bias against boys and men screwing men\u2019s mental health and futures  up , as well as stem including mostly majority female subjects, such as biology, social sciences, psychology ectr, that aren\u2019t included. Simply put MEN are doing worse in education  Finally, are you aware that domestic violence and rape of men is seen as humourous , in fact it\u2019s played for laughs on many shows. No one is suggesting that equality means hitting  women , that\u2019s an ignorant statement.  You say men might not understand feminism well, I have a counter statement, I think you don\u2019t know it well enough, have you even looked at the history of feminism, it started off with violence, the suffragettes were terrorists, planting bombs, committing crimes so their husbands would be arrested (Becuase yes, in the past women could have their husbands arrested with them or instead of them if they committed a crime with his knowledge at any point, and they would be arrested for the women\u2019s non payed debt) they shamed men who didn\u2019t enlist to die, see the white feather brigade, it then went on to more violence and sexism, with people like valorie solanus , author of the scum manefesto, a text which advocates the genocide of men, and is still put forward as a legit text today, my dear, IT IS MEIN KAMPF but for women. She also tried to assassinate a gay man , Andy Warhol. Let\u2019s go on to the more recent times, racism, sexism, homophobia (Becuase if it wasn\u2019t bad enough with gay men being executed or castrated, lesbians were largely ignored by law) we have feminist scholars and researchers using false or cherry picked statistics to present a false image of society. Feminist lawmakers presenting the dulath model of domestic violence, a model which paints the man as an automatic aggressor  and has resulted in the incarceration of the man who was in fact being abused.   As you\u2019ll see by the inevitable downvotes, you can\u2019t criticise feminism without being socially ostricised, it\u2019s in fact the only thing that doesn\u2019t discriminate as it doesn\u2019t matter if your left wing or right wing, men or women. It also proves my quite lengthy rant","human_ref_B":"I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman.   If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7562.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11wwrm","c_root_id_B":"g11te6y","created_at_utc_A":1597106446,"created_at_utc_B":1597104475,"score_A":28,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman.   If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way.","human_ref_B":">violence against women   Such an odd way to phrase the term self defense.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1971.0,"score_ratio":9.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11wwrm","c_root_id_B":"g11uj1l","created_at_utc_A":1597106446,"created_at_utc_B":1597105110,"score_A":28,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman.   If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way.","human_ref_B":"> If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk.  How about option #3:  Making a point that women and men already have equal rights (with a couple exceptions that favor women) in the U.S., so if you're still whining about equal rights, you must be talking about the way men can't hit women because what other rights are you talking about where the genders aren't equal?  > When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on  And that equality already exists in the U.S. in the eyes of the law, so are you saying that your first thought is \"feminism is no longer needed because it's goals have been accomplished\"?  > my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\"   So what **is** your first thought then?  What rights are unequal that your first thoughts go to?  > instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves?   Again, gender equality exists in the U.S.  There is nothing left to improve (unless you're giving men the rights that women have or women the responsibilities that men have).  > Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?  Because gender equality already exists.  So if feminism is about creating more rights for women, it's no longer about equality.  It's about creating inequality.  And that is wrong.  > Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  Yep.  It did that.  So what is Feminism focusing on now?  > with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense.  A 140 pound man doesn't walk up and slap a 230 pound guy in a bar because he knows that there is a high likelihood that he's going to get punched back twice as hard.  But a 140 pound woman?  She knows she has female privilege so she has no problem slapping that same 230 pound guy in a bar.  What's he doing to do, hit her back?  *Yeah right* <eyeroll>.  That's female privilege and that's not equality.  So shouldn't feminism be opposed to that if they're just about gender equality?  > But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women  Again, it's not about literally hitting women.  I'm not saying in this post that it should be fine for the 230 pound guy to level that 140 pound woman.  It's to make the point that feminism is unnecessary, because equality in the U.S. already exists (with the implied, except for the fact that men can't hit women).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1336.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11ng43","c_root_id_B":"g11wwrm","created_at_utc_A":1597101224,"created_at_utc_B":1597106446,"score_A":2,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"I think you need to define further \"gender equality\"  If you're saying that all genders should be treated with the same human dignity, paid the same for the same work, and given\/encouraged to pursue the same opportunities in life, then I'd agree someone saying \"then men should be able to hit women\" is probably carrying some misogynistic tendencies.  But if you're defining \"gender equality\" as \"women and men are exactly the same, and their are ZERO differences between them biologically\" then the idea that \"if a woman hits me I'm allowed to hit back\" is a (while a bit lazy) pretty fair counter-point. As most people would agree that (with exception to the extremes) a man striking a woman is generally much more dangerous than a woman striking a man.","human_ref_B":"I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman.   If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5222.0,"score_ratio":14.0}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11wwrm","c_root_id_B":"g11obgz","created_at_utc_A":1597106446,"created_at_utc_B":1597101688,"score_A":28,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman.   If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way.","human_ref_B":"It's normal, bcs men were never been able to hit women, bcs they were girls and they could he hitten. Too if i wouldn't never hit a girl, bcs I'm scared to hurt her, I like the fact that the wall of \"you can't hit me, I'm a girl\" has been demolished","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4758.0,"score_ratio":14.0}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11wwrm","c_root_id_B":"g11s9ma","created_at_utc_A":1597106446,"created_at_utc_B":1597103849,"score_A":28,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman.   If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way.","human_ref_B":"The reason people say it is that we live in a society which is progressive, yet still demonized men who defend themselves against attack from women, and also ridicules them. By the way, people say \"that means men can hit women IN SELF DEFENSE\" because the majority of men's major concern is us actually receding as a society and allowing abuse and whatnot, as long as it's against men.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2597.0,"score_ratio":14.0}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11vakn","c_root_id_B":"g11lqfm","created_at_utc_A":1597105541,"created_at_utc_B":1597100322,"score_A":13,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"This might not make much sense but bare with me.  In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it.   Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced.   When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied.  When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men.  So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to \"what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women.\"","human_ref_B":"The real problem is that far too many misandrists adopt the guise of feminists, and the real feminists are generally not very quick to vocally object to it.   We see government officials trying to ensure men accused of rape or other sex charges are railroaded out of colleges without due process or fair hearings. Where are the voices calling for fair hearings, that treat men and women as equally responsible for their actions?   When there is a good job that is Male dominated, everyone is eager to get women into it. But when a dangerous, or hard job is male dominated, we can only hear a small handful of voices saying that women should have an equal share of those jobs too...  We hear all about toxic masculinity, but at the same time, we expect men to hold doors for women, pay on the first date, not hit women, etc...   And lets not even get into the courts and criminal justice system...  You can't have it both ways. Either we go for equality, or we recognize there are gender roles, and we try to balance those out. Hitting women is a micro-chasm for this. If women are equal, they don't deserve special protections. In which case, if a woman hits a man, that man should have just as much right to hit back, as if he had been hit by another man.   We should all be for Egalitarianism, and that means working for more fair treatment of both men and women. And we shouldn't try to pick and choose only the equality that benefits our gender.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5219.0,"score_ratio":1.1818181818}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11qpmm","c_root_id_B":"g11vakn","created_at_utc_A":1597102986,"created_at_utc_B":1597105541,"score_A":9,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Feminist here.    There are a number of ways that our society is misandrist. The first thing that comes to mind is how we normalize violence against men. Think of how many times the heroine in books or movies knees, slaps, punches or throws a drink in her cheating dirtbag SO's face. It's literally physical violence - a crime - and we're supposed to cheer. It makes me freaking scream. And I am female. I can imagine that men feel it more keenly than I do.  I can see someone who isn't good with words respond to an argument for gender equality by trying to point out that inequality between the sexes doesn't just disadvantage women, but ineloquently shouting \"then men can hit women too!\" This person wouldn't mean that women should be kneed, slapped, punched or have a drink thrown in their face, but rather that it's not all rainbows and lollipops for men either.   And the easy response to that is, \"no. No one should be hitting anyone, regardless of genitalia.\"  Now if they guy responses, \"yes, yes we should,\" then that's another story.","human_ref_B":"This might not make much sense but bare with me.  In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it.   Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced.   When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied.  When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men.  So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to \"what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2555.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11om1u","c_root_id_B":"g11vakn","created_at_utc_A":1597101844,"created_at_utc_B":1597105541,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"My response will start out with not directly debating your idea, but bear with me.  >When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities  Okay, so let's look at your opportunities you mention.  >in the eyes of the law,  Women generally get less harsh sentencing for the same crimes, and they will usually win child custody.  >in healthcare,  Health care specifically relating to women, such as breast cancer, is far better funded than health care relating to men, such as testicular cancer. The only exception that everyone always brings up are abortions, but that is due to the ethical considerations - plus, it is definitely talked about, so it's not like this is some kind of taboo or ignored topic. Unlike suicide rates for men. Furthermore, support centers for women, be it due to domestic violence, sexual abuse, or any other reason, are much more common than the same for men.  >in education  The majority of university graduates are women.  >in STEM fields  This is not due to an inequality of opportunity, though. As I mentioned, most university graduates are already women, so it's not like universities discriminate based on sex (rather discrimination in the opposite direction is more likely, but that isn't the point here).   >instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves  Because there is no such consideration for men. People tend to dislike or ignore movements that make no difference to their own person.  >Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  I'll refer to my previous points.  But in broader terms, there is an argument to be made that women are already superior to men in the general society, specifically because of the things I mentioned. I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, but it's not as clear cut as \"Women are always disadvantaged\", and saying that makes you seem ignorant and naive.  You could also look at the vast number of experiments people have done. Put two actors in a public place, one severely insulting and abusing the other. If it's the man that is doing the abusing people will generally stop and intervene. Reverse the rolls and suddenly you have at best people who ignore it, and at worst people who laugh.   And now onto my actual point.  >If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk  There is no reason to assume that this is *the first thing* they think of.   It's absolutely possible that they've had all these thoughts. That they might even have discussed them with others in the past. Depending on who they spoke to (and who the response of \"so men can hit women\" is aimed at) they might just not think that an actual discussion will get any results, that the one they respond to will just deflect or ignore them. Disillusionment.","human_ref_B":"This might not make much sense but bare with me.  In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it.   Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced.   When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied.  When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men.  So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to \"what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3697.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11vakn","c_root_id_B":"g11jjbg","created_at_utc_A":1597105541,"created_at_utc_B":1597099188,"score_A":13,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This might not make much sense but bare with me.  In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it.   Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced.   When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied.  When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men.  So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to \"what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women.\"","human_ref_B":">I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.   Women ARE smaller and physically weaker. To say that they aren't is just denying objective reality. It does make sense to argue though that if a woman hits a man, she should expect to get a proportional response and that may include getting hit back. Women should not get total freedom from responsibility for their actions. All too often society acts like they should and that is wrong. I think the right of men to defend themselves is really the key point and not entitlement to violence.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6353.0,"score_ratio":2.6}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11ixsm","c_root_id_B":"g11vakn","created_at_utc_A":1597098884,"created_at_utc_B":1597105541,"score_A":4,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Sorry, but most of what you\u2019ve mentioned there isn\u2019t right, in the eyes of the law , men are treated massively worse, In healthcare , men\u2019s cancers are not given as much funding, and men are still less likely to seek help of any kind, heart disease, sports is a no brainier, in the job market. Men are not payed more than women, in fact young women out earn men of the same age group, and retire earlier, they also are more likely to buy a house. The wage gap is not \u2018women get payed less\u2019 there are so many variables and the one with the biggest  effect is choice. And would women really want to do the jobs most men do which pay well, they are dangerous and yucky , and without them society would have fallen long ago, stem fields are not minority women, in fact women are the majority in higher education, with the teacher bias against boys and men screwing men\u2019s mental health and futures  up , as well as stem including mostly majority female subjects, such as biology, social sciences, psychology ectr, that aren\u2019t included. Simply put MEN are doing worse in education  Finally, are you aware that domestic violence and rape of men is seen as humourous , in fact it\u2019s played for laughs on many shows. No one is suggesting that equality means hitting  women , that\u2019s an ignorant statement.  You say men might not understand feminism well, I have a counter statement, I think you don\u2019t know it well enough, have you even looked at the history of feminism, it started off with violence, the suffragettes were terrorists, planting bombs, committing crimes so their husbands would be arrested (Becuase yes, in the past women could have their husbands arrested with them or instead of them if they committed a crime with his knowledge at any point, and they would be arrested for the women\u2019s non payed debt) they shamed men who didn\u2019t enlist to die, see the white feather brigade, it then went on to more violence and sexism, with people like valorie solanus , author of the scum manefesto, a text which advocates the genocide of men, and is still put forward as a legit text today, my dear, IT IS MEIN KAMPF but for women. She also tried to assassinate a gay man , Andy Warhol. Let\u2019s go on to the more recent times, racism, sexism, homophobia (Becuase if it wasn\u2019t bad enough with gay men being executed or castrated, lesbians were largely ignored by law) we have feminist scholars and researchers using false or cherry picked statistics to present a false image of society. Feminist lawmakers presenting the dulath model of domestic violence, a model which paints the man as an automatic aggressor  and has resulted in the incarceration of the man who was in fact being abused.   As you\u2019ll see by the inevitable downvotes, you can\u2019t criticise feminism without being socially ostricised, it\u2019s in fact the only thing that doesn\u2019t discriminate as it doesn\u2019t matter if your left wing or right wing, men or women. It also proves my quite lengthy rant","human_ref_B":"This might not make much sense but bare with me.  In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it.   Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced.   When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied.  When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men.  So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to \"what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6657.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11vakn","c_root_id_B":"g11te6y","created_at_utc_A":1597105541,"created_at_utc_B":1597104475,"score_A":13,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This might not make much sense but bare with me.  In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it.   Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced.   When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied.  When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men.  So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to \"what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women.\"","human_ref_B":">violence against women   Such an odd way to phrase the term self defense.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1066.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11uj1l","c_root_id_B":"g11vakn","created_at_utc_A":1597105110,"created_at_utc_B":1597105541,"score_A":4,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"> If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk.  How about option #3:  Making a point that women and men already have equal rights (with a couple exceptions that favor women) in the U.S., so if you're still whining about equal rights, you must be talking about the way men can't hit women because what other rights are you talking about where the genders aren't equal?  > When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on  And that equality already exists in the U.S. in the eyes of the law, so are you saying that your first thought is \"feminism is no longer needed because it's goals have been accomplished\"?  > my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\"   So what **is** your first thought then?  What rights are unequal that your first thoughts go to?  > instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves?   Again, gender equality exists in the U.S.  There is nothing left to improve (unless you're giving men the rights that women have or women the responsibilities that men have).  > Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?  Because gender equality already exists.  So if feminism is about creating more rights for women, it's no longer about equality.  It's about creating inequality.  And that is wrong.  > Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  Yep.  It did that.  So what is Feminism focusing on now?  > with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense.  A 140 pound man doesn't walk up and slap a 230 pound guy in a bar because he knows that there is a high likelihood that he's going to get punched back twice as hard.  But a 140 pound woman?  She knows she has female privilege so she has no problem slapping that same 230 pound guy in a bar.  What's he doing to do, hit her back?  *Yeah right* <eyeroll>.  That's female privilege and that's not equality.  So shouldn't feminism be opposed to that if they're just about gender equality?  > But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women  Again, it's not about literally hitting women.  I'm not saying in this post that it should be fine for the 230 pound guy to level that 140 pound woman.  It's to make the point that feminism is unnecessary, because equality in the U.S. already exists (with the implied, except for the fact that men can't hit women).","human_ref_B":"This might not make much sense but bare with me.  In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it.   Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced.   When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied.  When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men.  So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to \"what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":431.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11ng43","c_root_id_B":"g11vakn","created_at_utc_A":1597101224,"created_at_utc_B":1597105541,"score_A":2,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I think you need to define further \"gender equality\"  If you're saying that all genders should be treated with the same human dignity, paid the same for the same work, and given\/encouraged to pursue the same opportunities in life, then I'd agree someone saying \"then men should be able to hit women\" is probably carrying some misogynistic tendencies.  But if you're defining \"gender equality\" as \"women and men are exactly the same, and their are ZERO differences between them biologically\" then the idea that \"if a woman hits me I'm allowed to hit back\" is a (while a bit lazy) pretty fair counter-point. As most people would agree that (with exception to the extremes) a man striking a woman is generally much more dangerous than a woman striking a man.","human_ref_B":"This might not make much sense but bare with me.  In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it.   Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced.   When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied.  When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men.  So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to \"what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4317.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11obgz","c_root_id_B":"g11vakn","created_at_utc_A":1597101688,"created_at_utc_B":1597105541,"score_A":2,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"It's normal, bcs men were never been able to hit women, bcs they were girls and they could he hitten. Too if i wouldn't never hit a girl, bcs I'm scared to hurt her, I like the fact that the wall of \"you can't hit me, I'm a girl\" has been demolished","human_ref_B":"This might not make much sense but bare with me.  In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it.   Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced.   When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied.  When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men.  So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to \"what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3853.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11s9ma","c_root_id_B":"g11vakn","created_at_utc_A":1597103849,"created_at_utc_B":1597105541,"score_A":2,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"The reason people say it is that we live in a society which is progressive, yet still demonized men who defend themselves against attack from women, and also ridicules them. By the way, people say \"that means men can hit women IN SELF DEFENSE\" because the majority of men's major concern is us actually receding as a society and allowing abuse and whatnot, as long as it's against men.","human_ref_B":"This might not make much sense but bare with me.  In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it.   Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced.   When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied.  When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men.  So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to \"what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1692.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11jjbg","c_root_id_B":"g11lqfm","created_at_utc_A":1597099188,"created_at_utc_B":1597100322,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.   Women ARE smaller and physically weaker. To say that they aren't is just denying objective reality. It does make sense to argue though that if a woman hits a man, she should expect to get a proportional response and that may include getting hit back. Women should not get total freedom from responsibility for their actions. All too often society acts like they should and that is wrong. I think the right of men to defend themselves is really the key point and not entitlement to violence.","human_ref_B":"The real problem is that far too many misandrists adopt the guise of feminists, and the real feminists are generally not very quick to vocally object to it.   We see government officials trying to ensure men accused of rape or other sex charges are railroaded out of colleges without due process or fair hearings. Where are the voices calling for fair hearings, that treat men and women as equally responsible for their actions?   When there is a good job that is Male dominated, everyone is eager to get women into it. But when a dangerous, or hard job is male dominated, we can only hear a small handful of voices saying that women should have an equal share of those jobs too...  We hear all about toxic masculinity, but at the same time, we expect men to hold doors for women, pay on the first date, not hit women, etc...   And lets not even get into the courts and criminal justice system...  You can't have it both ways. Either we go for equality, or we recognize there are gender roles, and we try to balance those out. Hitting women is a micro-chasm for this. If women are equal, they don't deserve special protections. In which case, if a woman hits a man, that man should have just as much right to hit back, as if he had been hit by another man.   We should all be for Egalitarianism, and that means working for more fair treatment of both men and women. And we shouldn't try to pick and choose only the equality that benefits our gender.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1134.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11lqfm","c_root_id_B":"g11ixsm","created_at_utc_A":1597100322,"created_at_utc_B":1597098884,"score_A":11,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The real problem is that far too many misandrists adopt the guise of feminists, and the real feminists are generally not very quick to vocally object to it.   We see government officials trying to ensure men accused of rape or other sex charges are railroaded out of colleges without due process or fair hearings. Where are the voices calling for fair hearings, that treat men and women as equally responsible for their actions?   When there is a good job that is Male dominated, everyone is eager to get women into it. But when a dangerous, or hard job is male dominated, we can only hear a small handful of voices saying that women should have an equal share of those jobs too...  We hear all about toxic masculinity, but at the same time, we expect men to hold doors for women, pay on the first date, not hit women, etc...   And lets not even get into the courts and criminal justice system...  You can't have it both ways. Either we go for equality, or we recognize there are gender roles, and we try to balance those out. Hitting women is a micro-chasm for this. If women are equal, they don't deserve special protections. In which case, if a woman hits a man, that man should have just as much right to hit back, as if he had been hit by another man.   We should all be for Egalitarianism, and that means working for more fair treatment of both men and women. And we shouldn't try to pick and choose only the equality that benefits our gender.","human_ref_B":"Sorry, but most of what you\u2019ve mentioned there isn\u2019t right, in the eyes of the law , men are treated massively worse, In healthcare , men\u2019s cancers are not given as much funding, and men are still less likely to seek help of any kind, heart disease, sports is a no brainier, in the job market. Men are not payed more than women, in fact young women out earn men of the same age group, and retire earlier, they also are more likely to buy a house. The wage gap is not \u2018women get payed less\u2019 there are so many variables and the one with the biggest  effect is choice. And would women really want to do the jobs most men do which pay well, they are dangerous and yucky , and without them society would have fallen long ago, stem fields are not minority women, in fact women are the majority in higher education, with the teacher bias against boys and men screwing men\u2019s mental health and futures  up , as well as stem including mostly majority female subjects, such as biology, social sciences, psychology ectr, that aren\u2019t included. Simply put MEN are doing worse in education  Finally, are you aware that domestic violence and rape of men is seen as humourous , in fact it\u2019s played for laughs on many shows. No one is suggesting that equality means hitting  women , that\u2019s an ignorant statement.  You say men might not understand feminism well, I have a counter statement, I think you don\u2019t know it well enough, have you even looked at the history of feminism, it started off with violence, the suffragettes were terrorists, planting bombs, committing crimes so their husbands would be arrested (Becuase yes, in the past women could have their husbands arrested with them or instead of them if they committed a crime with his knowledge at any point, and they would be arrested for the women\u2019s non payed debt) they shamed men who didn\u2019t enlist to die, see the white feather brigade, it then went on to more violence and sexism, with people like valorie solanus , author of the scum manefesto, a text which advocates the genocide of men, and is still put forward as a legit text today, my dear, IT IS MEIN KAMPF but for women. She also tried to assassinate a gay man , Andy Warhol. Let\u2019s go on to the more recent times, racism, sexism, homophobia (Becuase if it wasn\u2019t bad enough with gay men being executed or castrated, lesbians were largely ignored by law) we have feminist scholars and researchers using false or cherry picked statistics to present a false image of society. Feminist lawmakers presenting the dulath model of domestic violence, a model which paints the man as an automatic aggressor  and has resulted in the incarceration of the man who was in fact being abused.   As you\u2019ll see by the inevitable downvotes, you can\u2019t criticise feminism without being socially ostricised, it\u2019s in fact the only thing that doesn\u2019t discriminate as it doesn\u2019t matter if your left wing or right wing, men or women. It also proves my quite lengthy rant","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1438.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11om1u","c_root_id_B":"g11qpmm","created_at_utc_A":1597101844,"created_at_utc_B":1597102986,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"My response will start out with not directly debating your idea, but bear with me.  >When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities  Okay, so let's look at your opportunities you mention.  >in the eyes of the law,  Women generally get less harsh sentencing for the same crimes, and they will usually win child custody.  >in healthcare,  Health care specifically relating to women, such as breast cancer, is far better funded than health care relating to men, such as testicular cancer. The only exception that everyone always brings up are abortions, but that is due to the ethical considerations - plus, it is definitely talked about, so it's not like this is some kind of taboo or ignored topic. Unlike suicide rates for men. Furthermore, support centers for women, be it due to domestic violence, sexual abuse, or any other reason, are much more common than the same for men.  >in education  The majority of university graduates are women.  >in STEM fields  This is not due to an inequality of opportunity, though. As I mentioned, most university graduates are already women, so it's not like universities discriminate based on sex (rather discrimination in the opposite direction is more likely, but that isn't the point here).   >instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves  Because there is no such consideration for men. People tend to dislike or ignore movements that make no difference to their own person.  >Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  I'll refer to my previous points.  But in broader terms, there is an argument to be made that women are already superior to men in the general society, specifically because of the things I mentioned. I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, but it's not as clear cut as \"Women are always disadvantaged\", and saying that makes you seem ignorant and naive.  You could also look at the vast number of experiments people have done. Put two actors in a public place, one severely insulting and abusing the other. If it's the man that is doing the abusing people will generally stop and intervene. Reverse the rolls and suddenly you have at best people who ignore it, and at worst people who laugh.   And now onto my actual point.  >If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk  There is no reason to assume that this is *the first thing* they think of.   It's absolutely possible that they've had all these thoughts. That they might even have discussed them with others in the past. Depending on who they spoke to (and who the response of \"so men can hit women\" is aimed at) they might just not think that an actual discussion will get any results, that the one they respond to will just deflect or ignore them. Disillusionment.","human_ref_B":"Feminist here.    There are a number of ways that our society is misandrist. The first thing that comes to mind is how we normalize violence against men. Think of how many times the heroine in books or movies knees, slaps, punches or throws a drink in her cheating dirtbag SO's face. It's literally physical violence - a crime - and we're supposed to cheer. It makes me freaking scream. And I am female. I can imagine that men feel it more keenly than I do.  I can see someone who isn't good with words respond to an argument for gender equality by trying to point out that inequality between the sexes doesn't just disadvantage women, but ineloquently shouting \"then men can hit women too!\" This person wouldn't mean that women should be kneed, slapped, punched or have a drink thrown in their face, but rather that it's not all rainbows and lollipops for men either.   And the easy response to that is, \"no. No one should be hitting anyone, regardless of genitalia.\"  Now if they guy responses, \"yes, yes we should,\" then that's another story.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1142.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11jjbg","c_root_id_B":"g11qpmm","created_at_utc_A":1597099188,"created_at_utc_B":1597102986,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":">I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.   Women ARE smaller and physically weaker. To say that they aren't is just denying objective reality. It does make sense to argue though that if a woman hits a man, she should expect to get a proportional response and that may include getting hit back. Women should not get total freedom from responsibility for their actions. All too often society acts like they should and that is wrong. I think the right of men to defend themselves is really the key point and not entitlement to violence.","human_ref_B":"Feminist here.    There are a number of ways that our society is misandrist. The first thing that comes to mind is how we normalize violence against men. Think of how many times the heroine in books or movies knees, slaps, punches or throws a drink in her cheating dirtbag SO's face. It's literally physical violence - a crime - and we're supposed to cheer. It makes me freaking scream. And I am female. I can imagine that men feel it more keenly than I do.  I can see someone who isn't good with words respond to an argument for gender equality by trying to point out that inequality between the sexes doesn't just disadvantage women, but ineloquently shouting \"then men can hit women too!\" This person wouldn't mean that women should be kneed, slapped, punched or have a drink thrown in their face, but rather that it's not all rainbows and lollipops for men either.   And the easy response to that is, \"no. No one should be hitting anyone, regardless of genitalia.\"  Now if they guy responses, \"yes, yes we should,\" then that's another story.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3798.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11qpmm","c_root_id_B":"g11ixsm","created_at_utc_A":1597102986,"created_at_utc_B":1597098884,"score_A":9,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Feminist here.    There are a number of ways that our society is misandrist. The first thing that comes to mind is how we normalize violence against men. Think of how many times the heroine in books or movies knees, slaps, punches or throws a drink in her cheating dirtbag SO's face. It's literally physical violence - a crime - and we're supposed to cheer. It makes me freaking scream. And I am female. I can imagine that men feel it more keenly than I do.  I can see someone who isn't good with words respond to an argument for gender equality by trying to point out that inequality between the sexes doesn't just disadvantage women, but ineloquently shouting \"then men can hit women too!\" This person wouldn't mean that women should be kneed, slapped, punched or have a drink thrown in their face, but rather that it's not all rainbows and lollipops for men either.   And the easy response to that is, \"no. No one should be hitting anyone, regardless of genitalia.\"  Now if they guy responses, \"yes, yes we should,\" then that's another story.","human_ref_B":"Sorry, but most of what you\u2019ve mentioned there isn\u2019t right, in the eyes of the law , men are treated massively worse, In healthcare , men\u2019s cancers are not given as much funding, and men are still less likely to seek help of any kind, heart disease, sports is a no brainier, in the job market. Men are not payed more than women, in fact young women out earn men of the same age group, and retire earlier, they also are more likely to buy a house. The wage gap is not \u2018women get payed less\u2019 there are so many variables and the one with the biggest  effect is choice. And would women really want to do the jobs most men do which pay well, they are dangerous and yucky , and without them society would have fallen long ago, stem fields are not minority women, in fact women are the majority in higher education, with the teacher bias against boys and men screwing men\u2019s mental health and futures  up , as well as stem including mostly majority female subjects, such as biology, social sciences, psychology ectr, that aren\u2019t included. Simply put MEN are doing worse in education  Finally, are you aware that domestic violence and rape of men is seen as humourous , in fact it\u2019s played for laughs on many shows. No one is suggesting that equality means hitting  women , that\u2019s an ignorant statement.  You say men might not understand feminism well, I have a counter statement, I think you don\u2019t know it well enough, have you even looked at the history of feminism, it started off with violence, the suffragettes were terrorists, planting bombs, committing crimes so their husbands would be arrested (Becuase yes, in the past women could have their husbands arrested with them or instead of them if they committed a crime with his knowledge at any point, and they would be arrested for the women\u2019s non payed debt) they shamed men who didn\u2019t enlist to die, see the white feather brigade, it then went on to more violence and sexism, with people like valorie solanus , author of the scum manefesto, a text which advocates the genocide of men, and is still put forward as a legit text today, my dear, IT IS MEIN KAMPF but for women. She also tried to assassinate a gay man , Andy Warhol. Let\u2019s go on to the more recent times, racism, sexism, homophobia (Becuase if it wasn\u2019t bad enough with gay men being executed or castrated, lesbians were largely ignored by law) we have feminist scholars and researchers using false or cherry picked statistics to present a false image of society. Feminist lawmakers presenting the dulath model of domestic violence, a model which paints the man as an automatic aggressor  and has resulted in the incarceration of the man who was in fact being abused.   As you\u2019ll see by the inevitable downvotes, you can\u2019t criticise feminism without being socially ostricised, it\u2019s in fact the only thing that doesn\u2019t discriminate as it doesn\u2019t matter if your left wing or right wing, men or women. It also proves my quite lengthy rant","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4102.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11qpmm","c_root_id_B":"g11ng43","created_at_utc_A":1597102986,"created_at_utc_B":1597101224,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Feminist here.    There are a number of ways that our society is misandrist. The first thing that comes to mind is how we normalize violence against men. Think of how many times the heroine in books or movies knees, slaps, punches or throws a drink in her cheating dirtbag SO's face. It's literally physical violence - a crime - and we're supposed to cheer. It makes me freaking scream. And I am female. I can imagine that men feel it more keenly than I do.  I can see someone who isn't good with words respond to an argument for gender equality by trying to point out that inequality between the sexes doesn't just disadvantage women, but ineloquently shouting \"then men can hit women too!\" This person wouldn't mean that women should be kneed, slapped, punched or have a drink thrown in their face, but rather that it's not all rainbows and lollipops for men either.   And the easy response to that is, \"no. No one should be hitting anyone, regardless of genitalia.\"  Now if they guy responses, \"yes, yes we should,\" then that's another story.","human_ref_B":"I think you need to define further \"gender equality\"  If you're saying that all genders should be treated with the same human dignity, paid the same for the same work, and given\/encouraged to pursue the same opportunities in life, then I'd agree someone saying \"then men should be able to hit women\" is probably carrying some misogynistic tendencies.  But if you're defining \"gender equality\" as \"women and men are exactly the same, and their are ZERO differences between them biologically\" then the idea that \"if a woman hits me I'm allowed to hit back\" is a (while a bit lazy) pretty fair counter-point. As most people would agree that (with exception to the extremes) a man striking a woman is generally much more dangerous than a woman striking a man.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1762.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11obgz","c_root_id_B":"g11qpmm","created_at_utc_A":1597101688,"created_at_utc_B":1597102986,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"It's normal, bcs men were never been able to hit women, bcs they were girls and they could he hitten. Too if i wouldn't never hit a girl, bcs I'm scared to hurt her, I like the fact that the wall of \"you can't hit me, I'm a girl\" has been demolished","human_ref_B":"Feminist here.    There are a number of ways that our society is misandrist. The first thing that comes to mind is how we normalize violence against men. Think of how many times the heroine in books or movies knees, slaps, punches or throws a drink in her cheating dirtbag SO's face. It's literally physical violence - a crime - and we're supposed to cheer. It makes me freaking scream. And I am female. I can imagine that men feel it more keenly than I do.  I can see someone who isn't good with words respond to an argument for gender equality by trying to point out that inequality between the sexes doesn't just disadvantage women, but ineloquently shouting \"then men can hit women too!\" This person wouldn't mean that women should be kneed, slapped, punched or have a drink thrown in their face, but rather that it's not all rainbows and lollipops for men either.   And the easy response to that is, \"no. No one should be hitting anyone, regardless of genitalia.\"  Now if they guy responses, \"yes, yes we should,\" then that's another story.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1298.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11om1u","c_root_id_B":"g11jjbg","created_at_utc_A":1597101844,"created_at_utc_B":1597099188,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"My response will start out with not directly debating your idea, but bear with me.  >When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities  Okay, so let's look at your opportunities you mention.  >in the eyes of the law,  Women generally get less harsh sentencing for the same crimes, and they will usually win child custody.  >in healthcare,  Health care specifically relating to women, such as breast cancer, is far better funded than health care relating to men, such as testicular cancer. The only exception that everyone always brings up are abortions, but that is due to the ethical considerations - plus, it is definitely talked about, so it's not like this is some kind of taboo or ignored topic. Unlike suicide rates for men. Furthermore, support centers for women, be it due to domestic violence, sexual abuse, or any other reason, are much more common than the same for men.  >in education  The majority of university graduates are women.  >in STEM fields  This is not due to an inequality of opportunity, though. As I mentioned, most university graduates are already women, so it's not like universities discriminate based on sex (rather discrimination in the opposite direction is more likely, but that isn't the point here).   >instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves  Because there is no such consideration for men. People tend to dislike or ignore movements that make no difference to their own person.  >Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  I'll refer to my previous points.  But in broader terms, there is an argument to be made that women are already superior to men in the general society, specifically because of the things I mentioned. I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, but it's not as clear cut as \"Women are always disadvantaged\", and saying that makes you seem ignorant and naive.  You could also look at the vast number of experiments people have done. Put two actors in a public place, one severely insulting and abusing the other. If it's the man that is doing the abusing people will generally stop and intervene. Reverse the rolls and suddenly you have at best people who ignore it, and at worst people who laugh.   And now onto my actual point.  >If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk  There is no reason to assume that this is *the first thing* they think of.   It's absolutely possible that they've had all these thoughts. That they might even have discussed them with others in the past. Depending on who they spoke to (and who the response of \"so men can hit women\" is aimed at) they might just not think that an actual discussion will get any results, that the one they respond to will just deflect or ignore them. Disillusionment.","human_ref_B":">I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.   Women ARE smaller and physically weaker. To say that they aren't is just denying objective reality. It does make sense to argue though that if a woman hits a man, she should expect to get a proportional response and that may include getting hit back. Women should not get total freedom from responsibility for their actions. All too often society acts like they should and that is wrong. I think the right of men to defend themselves is really the key point and not entitlement to violence.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2656.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11ixsm","c_root_id_B":"g11om1u","created_at_utc_A":1597098884,"created_at_utc_B":1597101844,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Sorry, but most of what you\u2019ve mentioned there isn\u2019t right, in the eyes of the law , men are treated massively worse, In healthcare , men\u2019s cancers are not given as much funding, and men are still less likely to seek help of any kind, heart disease, sports is a no brainier, in the job market. Men are not payed more than women, in fact young women out earn men of the same age group, and retire earlier, they also are more likely to buy a house. The wage gap is not \u2018women get payed less\u2019 there are so many variables and the one with the biggest  effect is choice. And would women really want to do the jobs most men do which pay well, they are dangerous and yucky , and without them society would have fallen long ago, stem fields are not minority women, in fact women are the majority in higher education, with the teacher bias against boys and men screwing men\u2019s mental health and futures  up , as well as stem including mostly majority female subjects, such as biology, social sciences, psychology ectr, that aren\u2019t included. Simply put MEN are doing worse in education  Finally, are you aware that domestic violence and rape of men is seen as humourous , in fact it\u2019s played for laughs on many shows. No one is suggesting that equality means hitting  women , that\u2019s an ignorant statement.  You say men might not understand feminism well, I have a counter statement, I think you don\u2019t know it well enough, have you even looked at the history of feminism, it started off with violence, the suffragettes were terrorists, planting bombs, committing crimes so their husbands would be arrested (Becuase yes, in the past women could have their husbands arrested with them or instead of them if they committed a crime with his knowledge at any point, and they would be arrested for the women\u2019s non payed debt) they shamed men who didn\u2019t enlist to die, see the white feather brigade, it then went on to more violence and sexism, with people like valorie solanus , author of the scum manefesto, a text which advocates the genocide of men, and is still put forward as a legit text today, my dear, IT IS MEIN KAMPF but for women. She also tried to assassinate a gay man , Andy Warhol. Let\u2019s go on to the more recent times, racism, sexism, homophobia (Becuase if it wasn\u2019t bad enough with gay men being executed or castrated, lesbians were largely ignored by law) we have feminist scholars and researchers using false or cherry picked statistics to present a false image of society. Feminist lawmakers presenting the dulath model of domestic violence, a model which paints the man as an automatic aggressor  and has resulted in the incarceration of the man who was in fact being abused.   As you\u2019ll see by the inevitable downvotes, you can\u2019t criticise feminism without being socially ostricised, it\u2019s in fact the only thing that doesn\u2019t discriminate as it doesn\u2019t matter if your left wing or right wing, men or women. It also proves my quite lengthy rant","human_ref_B":"My response will start out with not directly debating your idea, but bear with me.  >When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities  Okay, so let's look at your opportunities you mention.  >in the eyes of the law,  Women generally get less harsh sentencing for the same crimes, and they will usually win child custody.  >in healthcare,  Health care specifically relating to women, such as breast cancer, is far better funded than health care relating to men, such as testicular cancer. The only exception that everyone always brings up are abortions, but that is due to the ethical considerations - plus, it is definitely talked about, so it's not like this is some kind of taboo or ignored topic. Unlike suicide rates for men. Furthermore, support centers for women, be it due to domestic violence, sexual abuse, or any other reason, are much more common than the same for men.  >in education  The majority of university graduates are women.  >in STEM fields  This is not due to an inequality of opportunity, though. As I mentioned, most university graduates are already women, so it's not like universities discriminate based on sex (rather discrimination in the opposite direction is more likely, but that isn't the point here).   >instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves  Because there is no such consideration for men. People tend to dislike or ignore movements that make no difference to their own person.  >Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  I'll refer to my previous points.  But in broader terms, there is an argument to be made that women are already superior to men in the general society, specifically because of the things I mentioned. I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, but it's not as clear cut as \"Women are always disadvantaged\", and saying that makes you seem ignorant and naive.  You could also look at the vast number of experiments people have done. Put two actors in a public place, one severely insulting and abusing the other. If it's the man that is doing the abusing people will generally stop and intervene. Reverse the rolls and suddenly you have at best people who ignore it, and at worst people who laugh.   And now onto my actual point.  >If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk  There is no reason to assume that this is *the first thing* they think of.   It's absolutely possible that they've had all these thoughts. That they might even have discussed them with others in the past. Depending on who they spoke to (and who the response of \"so men can hit women\" is aimed at) they might just not think that an actual discussion will get any results, that the one they respond to will just deflect or ignore them. Disillusionment.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2960.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11om1u","c_root_id_B":"g11ng43","created_at_utc_A":1597101844,"created_at_utc_B":1597101224,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"My response will start out with not directly debating your idea, but bear with me.  >When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities  Okay, so let's look at your opportunities you mention.  >in the eyes of the law,  Women generally get less harsh sentencing for the same crimes, and they will usually win child custody.  >in healthcare,  Health care specifically relating to women, such as breast cancer, is far better funded than health care relating to men, such as testicular cancer. The only exception that everyone always brings up are abortions, but that is due to the ethical considerations - plus, it is definitely talked about, so it's not like this is some kind of taboo or ignored topic. Unlike suicide rates for men. Furthermore, support centers for women, be it due to domestic violence, sexual abuse, or any other reason, are much more common than the same for men.  >in education  The majority of university graduates are women.  >in STEM fields  This is not due to an inequality of opportunity, though. As I mentioned, most university graduates are already women, so it's not like universities discriminate based on sex (rather discrimination in the opposite direction is more likely, but that isn't the point here).   >instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves  Because there is no such consideration for men. People tend to dislike or ignore movements that make no difference to their own person.  >Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  I'll refer to my previous points.  But in broader terms, there is an argument to be made that women are already superior to men in the general society, specifically because of the things I mentioned. I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, but it's not as clear cut as \"Women are always disadvantaged\", and saying that makes you seem ignorant and naive.  You could also look at the vast number of experiments people have done. Put two actors in a public place, one severely insulting and abusing the other. If it's the man that is doing the abusing people will generally stop and intervene. Reverse the rolls and suddenly you have at best people who ignore it, and at worst people who laugh.   And now onto my actual point.  >If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk  There is no reason to assume that this is *the first thing* they think of.   It's absolutely possible that they've had all these thoughts. That they might even have discussed them with others in the past. Depending on who they spoke to (and who the response of \"so men can hit women\" is aimed at) they might just not think that an actual discussion will get any results, that the one they respond to will just deflect or ignore them. Disillusionment.","human_ref_B":"I think you need to define further \"gender equality\"  If you're saying that all genders should be treated with the same human dignity, paid the same for the same work, and given\/encouraged to pursue the same opportunities in life, then I'd agree someone saying \"then men should be able to hit women\" is probably carrying some misogynistic tendencies.  But if you're defining \"gender equality\" as \"women and men are exactly the same, and their are ZERO differences between them biologically\" then the idea that \"if a woman hits me I'm allowed to hit back\" is a (while a bit lazy) pretty fair counter-point. As most people would agree that (with exception to the extremes) a man striking a woman is generally much more dangerous than a woman striking a man.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":620.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11obgz","c_root_id_B":"g11om1u","created_at_utc_A":1597101688,"created_at_utc_B":1597101844,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It's normal, bcs men were never been able to hit women, bcs they were girls and they could he hitten. Too if i wouldn't never hit a girl, bcs I'm scared to hurt her, I like the fact that the wall of \"you can't hit me, I'm a girl\" has been demolished","human_ref_B":"My response will start out with not directly debating your idea, but bear with me.  >When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities  Okay, so let's look at your opportunities you mention.  >in the eyes of the law,  Women generally get less harsh sentencing for the same crimes, and they will usually win child custody.  >in healthcare,  Health care specifically relating to women, such as breast cancer, is far better funded than health care relating to men, such as testicular cancer. The only exception that everyone always brings up are abortions, but that is due to the ethical considerations - plus, it is definitely talked about, so it's not like this is some kind of taboo or ignored topic. Unlike suicide rates for men. Furthermore, support centers for women, be it due to domestic violence, sexual abuse, or any other reason, are much more common than the same for men.  >in education  The majority of university graduates are women.  >in STEM fields  This is not due to an inequality of opportunity, though. As I mentioned, most university graduates are already women, so it's not like universities discriminate based on sex (rather discrimination in the opposite direction is more likely, but that isn't the point here).   >instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves  Because there is no such consideration for men. People tend to dislike or ignore movements that make no difference to their own person.  >Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  I'll refer to my previous points.  But in broader terms, there is an argument to be made that women are already superior to men in the general society, specifically because of the things I mentioned. I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, but it's not as clear cut as \"Women are always disadvantaged\", and saying that makes you seem ignorant and naive.  You could also look at the vast number of experiments people have done. Put two actors in a public place, one severely insulting and abusing the other. If it's the man that is doing the abusing people will generally stop and intervene. Reverse the rolls and suddenly you have at best people who ignore it, and at worst people who laugh.   And now onto my actual point.  >If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk  There is no reason to assume that this is *the first thing* they think of.   It's absolutely possible that they've had all these thoughts. That they might even have discussed them with others in the past. Depending on who they spoke to (and who the response of \"so men can hit women\" is aimed at) they might just not think that an actual discussion will get any results, that the one they respond to will just deflect or ignore them. Disillusionment.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":156.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11jjbg","c_root_id_B":"g11ixsm","created_at_utc_A":1597099188,"created_at_utc_B":1597098884,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.   Women ARE smaller and physically weaker. To say that they aren't is just denying objective reality. It does make sense to argue though that if a woman hits a man, she should expect to get a proportional response and that may include getting hit back. Women should not get total freedom from responsibility for their actions. All too often society acts like they should and that is wrong. I think the right of men to defend themselves is really the key point and not entitlement to violence.","human_ref_B":"Sorry, but most of what you\u2019ve mentioned there isn\u2019t right, in the eyes of the law , men are treated massively worse, In healthcare , men\u2019s cancers are not given as much funding, and men are still less likely to seek help of any kind, heart disease, sports is a no brainier, in the job market. Men are not payed more than women, in fact young women out earn men of the same age group, and retire earlier, they also are more likely to buy a house. The wage gap is not \u2018women get payed less\u2019 there are so many variables and the one with the biggest  effect is choice. And would women really want to do the jobs most men do which pay well, they are dangerous and yucky , and without them society would have fallen long ago, stem fields are not minority women, in fact women are the majority in higher education, with the teacher bias against boys and men screwing men\u2019s mental health and futures  up , as well as stem including mostly majority female subjects, such as biology, social sciences, psychology ectr, that aren\u2019t included. Simply put MEN are doing worse in education  Finally, are you aware that domestic violence and rape of men is seen as humourous , in fact it\u2019s played for laughs on many shows. No one is suggesting that equality means hitting  women , that\u2019s an ignorant statement.  You say men might not understand feminism well, I have a counter statement, I think you don\u2019t know it well enough, have you even looked at the history of feminism, it started off with violence, the suffragettes were terrorists, planting bombs, committing crimes so their husbands would be arrested (Becuase yes, in the past women could have their husbands arrested with them or instead of them if they committed a crime with his knowledge at any point, and they would be arrested for the women\u2019s non payed debt) they shamed men who didn\u2019t enlist to die, see the white feather brigade, it then went on to more violence and sexism, with people like valorie solanus , author of the scum manefesto, a text which advocates the genocide of men, and is still put forward as a legit text today, my dear, IT IS MEIN KAMPF but for women. She also tried to assassinate a gay man , Andy Warhol. Let\u2019s go on to the more recent times, racism, sexism, homophobia (Becuase if it wasn\u2019t bad enough with gay men being executed or castrated, lesbians were largely ignored by law) we have feminist scholars and researchers using false or cherry picked statistics to present a false image of society. Feminist lawmakers presenting the dulath model of domestic violence, a model which paints the man as an automatic aggressor  and has resulted in the incarceration of the man who was in fact being abused.   As you\u2019ll see by the inevitable downvotes, you can\u2019t criticise feminism without being socially ostricised, it\u2019s in fact the only thing that doesn\u2019t discriminate as it doesn\u2019t matter if your left wing or right wing, men or women. It also proves my quite lengthy rant","labels":1,"seconds_difference":304.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11te6y","c_root_id_B":"g11uj1l","created_at_utc_A":1597104475,"created_at_utc_B":1597105110,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">violence against women   Such an odd way to phrase the term self defense.","human_ref_B":"> If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk.  How about option #3:  Making a point that women and men already have equal rights (with a couple exceptions that favor women) in the U.S., so if you're still whining about equal rights, you must be talking about the way men can't hit women because what other rights are you talking about where the genders aren't equal?  > When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on  And that equality already exists in the U.S. in the eyes of the law, so are you saying that your first thought is \"feminism is no longer needed because it's goals have been accomplished\"?  > my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\"   So what **is** your first thought then?  What rights are unequal that your first thoughts go to?  > instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves?   Again, gender equality exists in the U.S.  There is nothing left to improve (unless you're giving men the rights that women have or women the responsibilities that men have).  > Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?  Because gender equality already exists.  So if feminism is about creating more rights for women, it's no longer about equality.  It's about creating inequality.  And that is wrong.  > Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  Yep.  It did that.  So what is Feminism focusing on now?  > with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense.  A 140 pound man doesn't walk up and slap a 230 pound guy in a bar because he knows that there is a high likelihood that he's going to get punched back twice as hard.  But a 140 pound woman?  She knows she has female privilege so she has no problem slapping that same 230 pound guy in a bar.  What's he doing to do, hit her back?  *Yeah right* <eyeroll>.  That's female privilege and that's not equality.  So shouldn't feminism be opposed to that if they're just about gender equality?  > But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women  Again, it's not about literally hitting women.  I'm not saying in this post that it should be fine for the 230 pound guy to level that 140 pound woman.  It's to make the point that feminism is unnecessary, because equality in the U.S. already exists (with the implied, except for the fact that men can't hit women).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":635.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11ng43","c_root_id_B":"g11te6y","created_at_utc_A":1597101224,"created_at_utc_B":1597104475,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think you need to define further \"gender equality\"  If you're saying that all genders should be treated with the same human dignity, paid the same for the same work, and given\/encouraged to pursue the same opportunities in life, then I'd agree someone saying \"then men should be able to hit women\" is probably carrying some misogynistic tendencies.  But if you're defining \"gender equality\" as \"women and men are exactly the same, and their are ZERO differences between them biologically\" then the idea that \"if a woman hits me I'm allowed to hit back\" is a (while a bit lazy) pretty fair counter-point. As most people would agree that (with exception to the extremes) a man striking a woman is generally much more dangerous than a woman striking a man.","human_ref_B":">violence against women   Such an odd way to phrase the term self defense.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3251.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11te6y","c_root_id_B":"g11obgz","created_at_utc_A":1597104475,"created_at_utc_B":1597101688,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">violence against women   Such an odd way to phrase the term self defense.","human_ref_B":"It's normal, bcs men were never been able to hit women, bcs they were girls and they could he hitten. Too if i wouldn't never hit a girl, bcs I'm scared to hurt her, I like the fact that the wall of \"you can't hit me, I'm a girl\" has been demolished","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2787.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11s9ma","c_root_id_B":"g11te6y","created_at_utc_A":1597103849,"created_at_utc_B":1597104475,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The reason people say it is that we live in a society which is progressive, yet still demonized men who defend themselves against attack from women, and also ridicules them. By the way, people say \"that means men can hit women IN SELF DEFENSE\" because the majority of men's major concern is us actually receding as a society and allowing abuse and whatnot, as long as it's against men.","human_ref_B":">violence against women   Such an odd way to phrase the term self defense.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":626.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11uj1l","c_root_id_B":"g11ng43","created_at_utc_A":1597105110,"created_at_utc_B":1597101224,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk.  How about option #3:  Making a point that women and men already have equal rights (with a couple exceptions that favor women) in the U.S., so if you're still whining about equal rights, you must be talking about the way men can't hit women because what other rights are you talking about where the genders aren't equal?  > When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on  And that equality already exists in the U.S. in the eyes of the law, so are you saying that your first thought is \"feminism is no longer needed because it's goals have been accomplished\"?  > my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\"   So what **is** your first thought then?  What rights are unequal that your first thoughts go to?  > instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves?   Again, gender equality exists in the U.S.  There is nothing left to improve (unless you're giving men the rights that women have or women the responsibilities that men have).  > Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?  Because gender equality already exists.  So if feminism is about creating more rights for women, it's no longer about equality.  It's about creating inequality.  And that is wrong.  > Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  Yep.  It did that.  So what is Feminism focusing on now?  > with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense.  A 140 pound man doesn't walk up and slap a 230 pound guy in a bar because he knows that there is a high likelihood that he's going to get punched back twice as hard.  But a 140 pound woman?  She knows she has female privilege so she has no problem slapping that same 230 pound guy in a bar.  What's he doing to do, hit her back?  *Yeah right* <eyeroll>.  That's female privilege and that's not equality.  So shouldn't feminism be opposed to that if they're just about gender equality?  > But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women  Again, it's not about literally hitting women.  I'm not saying in this post that it should be fine for the 230 pound guy to level that 140 pound woman.  It's to make the point that feminism is unnecessary, because equality in the U.S. already exists (with the implied, except for the fact that men can't hit women).","human_ref_B":"I think you need to define further \"gender equality\"  If you're saying that all genders should be treated with the same human dignity, paid the same for the same work, and given\/encouraged to pursue the same opportunities in life, then I'd agree someone saying \"then men should be able to hit women\" is probably carrying some misogynistic tendencies.  But if you're defining \"gender equality\" as \"women and men are exactly the same, and their are ZERO differences between them biologically\" then the idea that \"if a woman hits me I'm allowed to hit back\" is a (while a bit lazy) pretty fair counter-point. As most people would agree that (with exception to the extremes) a man striking a woman is generally much more dangerous than a woman striking a man.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3886.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11uj1l","c_root_id_B":"g11obgz","created_at_utc_A":1597105110,"created_at_utc_B":1597101688,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk.  How about option #3:  Making a point that women and men already have equal rights (with a couple exceptions that favor women) in the U.S., so if you're still whining about equal rights, you must be talking about the way men can't hit women because what other rights are you talking about where the genders aren't equal?  > When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on  And that equality already exists in the U.S. in the eyes of the law, so are you saying that your first thought is \"feminism is no longer needed because it's goals have been accomplished\"?  > my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\"   So what **is** your first thought then?  What rights are unequal that your first thoughts go to?  > instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves?   Again, gender equality exists in the U.S.  There is nothing left to improve (unless you're giving men the rights that women have or women the responsibilities that men have).  > Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?  Because gender equality already exists.  So if feminism is about creating more rights for women, it's no longer about equality.  It's about creating inequality.  And that is wrong.  > Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  Yep.  It did that.  So what is Feminism focusing on now?  > with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense.  A 140 pound man doesn't walk up and slap a 230 pound guy in a bar because he knows that there is a high likelihood that he's going to get punched back twice as hard.  But a 140 pound woman?  She knows she has female privilege so she has no problem slapping that same 230 pound guy in a bar.  What's he doing to do, hit her back?  *Yeah right* <eyeroll>.  That's female privilege and that's not equality.  So shouldn't feminism be opposed to that if they're just about gender equality?  > But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women  Again, it's not about literally hitting women.  I'm not saying in this post that it should be fine for the 230 pound guy to level that 140 pound woman.  It's to make the point that feminism is unnecessary, because equality in the U.S. already exists (with the implied, except for the fact that men can't hit women).","human_ref_B":"It's normal, bcs men were never been able to hit women, bcs they were girls and they could he hitten. Too if i wouldn't never hit a girl, bcs I'm scared to hurt her, I like the fact that the wall of \"you can't hit me, I'm a girl\" has been demolished","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3422.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"i7fbip","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, \"so that means men can hit women,\" then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole \"you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl\" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out.  &#x200B;  However...  &#x200B;  If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?   &#x200B;  Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as \"men are \\*allowed\\* to fight women\" instead of \"men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary.\"   &#x200B;  Again, I agree that saying things like \"I don't fight women,\" \"I can't hit her because she's a girl,\" etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems.  &#x200B;  Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say.","c_root_id_A":"g11s9ma","c_root_id_B":"g11uj1l","created_at_utc_A":1597103849,"created_at_utc_B":1597105110,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The reason people say it is that we live in a society which is progressive, yet still demonized men who defend themselves against attack from women, and also ridicules them. By the way, people say \"that means men can hit women IN SELF DEFENSE\" because the majority of men's major concern is us actually receding as a society and allowing abuse and whatnot, as long as it's against men.","human_ref_B":"> If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk.  How about option #3:  Making a point that women and men already have equal rights (with a couple exceptions that favor women) in the U.S., so if you're still whining about equal rights, you must be talking about the way men can't hit women because what other rights are you talking about where the genders aren't equal?  > When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on  And that equality already exists in the U.S. in the eyes of the law, so are you saying that your first thought is \"feminism is no longer needed because it's goals have been accomplished\"?  > my very first thought isn't \"oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!\"   So what **is** your first thought then?  What rights are unequal that your first thoughts go to?  > instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves?   Again, gender equality exists in the U.S.  There is nothing left to improve (unless you're giving men the rights that women have or women the responsibilities that men have).  > Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong?  Because gender equality already exists.  So if feminism is about creating more rights for women, it's no longer about equality.  It's about creating inequality.  And that is wrong.  > Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get.  Yep.  It did that.  So what is Feminism focusing on now?  > with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as \"I'm allowed to hit women\" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense.  A 140 pound man doesn't walk up and slap a 230 pound guy in a bar because he knows that there is a high likelihood that he's going to get punched back twice as hard.  But a 140 pound woman?  She knows she has female privilege so she has no problem slapping that same 230 pound guy in a bar.  What's he doing to do, hit her back?  *Yeah right* <eyeroll>.  That's female privilege and that's not equality.  So shouldn't feminism be opposed to that if they're just about gender equality?  > But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women  Again, it's not about literally hitting women.  I'm not saying in this post that it should be fine for the 230 pound guy to level that 140 pound woman.  It's to make the point that feminism is unnecessary, because equality in the U.S. already exists (with the implied, except for the fact that men can't hit women).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1261.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"3vyga5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: The second amendment is not an effective way for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical regime emerging in the United States I hear two primary reasons for people citing the need for individual armament: personal defense and so the citizens can protect themselves from tyranny. I think the notion that the citizens could potentially protect themselves from a tyrannical regime with the military capabilities of the United States is ludicrous.  I think the discussion has to start with a few acknowledgements.   First, in the scenario I am discussing, the United States military would have to be backing the regime. Tyranny cannot exist without a virtual monopoly on force and a citizens rebellion would not be necessary if the military opposed the regime. In that scenario the military could effectively overthrow the tyrant via a coup d'etat.  Second, tyrants act like tyrants. We should expect the tyrannical regime to have minimal regard for human rights and to do virtually everything in their power to crush the opposition. We should expect the regime to show similar levels of restraint as we've seen from other dictators when they have crushed past rebellions, only with the enormously enhanced military, intelligence and surveillance capabilities of the United States.  Third, there would be minimal potential for external intervention or assistance. Even in the case of a citizens rebellion, other countries would be extremely wary of arming rebels and potentially starting a devastating war with the United States.  With those ideas acknowledged, I fail to see how armed citizens would stand a chance against the strength of the United States military. Assault rifles don't stand a chance against helicopters, drone strikes, tanks and air raids. At best, the citizens could start a guerrilla war, but I have a hard time believing that given the United States' massive capabilities that guerrillas would achieve any substantive victories or gain any momentum. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cxrsavb","c_root_id_B":"cxrrdxr","created_at_utc_A":1449599071,"created_at_utc_B":1449597845,"score_A":24,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I think you *vastly* underestimate the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare. There are more than 300 million guns in the U.S. And millions upon millions of veterans.   And our armed forces only have a couple million soldiers, some fraction of which would undoubtedly defect.  Air strikes work against hard targets. There's a *reason* why all wars that anyone wins ultimately come down to soldiers with rifles on the ground.   And those soldiers are vulnerable.   The armed forces don't actually have enough *ammunition* to kill everyone with a gun, even assuming 100% hits and optimal use of all our bombs. There aren't enough drones (nor is it possible to make enough) to watch for all of the people that would be guerrillas.  Nor enough force to protect the ammunition factories without destroying them in the process. Nor the National Guard armories.","human_ref_B":"I think the Vietnamese, Afghans, and Iraqis would disagree with you regarding the effectiveness of the U.S. military against a determined insurgency.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1226.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909}
+{"post_id":"3vyga5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: The second amendment is not an effective way for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical regime emerging in the United States I hear two primary reasons for people citing the need for individual armament: personal defense and so the citizens can protect themselves from tyranny. I think the notion that the citizens could potentially protect themselves from a tyrannical regime with the military capabilities of the United States is ludicrous.  I think the discussion has to start with a few acknowledgements.   First, in the scenario I am discussing, the United States military would have to be backing the regime. Tyranny cannot exist without a virtual monopoly on force and a citizens rebellion would not be necessary if the military opposed the regime. In that scenario the military could effectively overthrow the tyrant via a coup d'etat.  Second, tyrants act like tyrants. We should expect the tyrannical regime to have minimal regard for human rights and to do virtually everything in their power to crush the opposition. We should expect the regime to show similar levels of restraint as we've seen from other dictators when they have crushed past rebellions, only with the enormously enhanced military, intelligence and surveillance capabilities of the United States.  Third, there would be minimal potential for external intervention or assistance. Even in the case of a citizens rebellion, other countries would be extremely wary of arming rebels and potentially starting a devastating war with the United States.  With those ideas acknowledged, I fail to see how armed citizens would stand a chance against the strength of the United States military. Assault rifles don't stand a chance against helicopters, drone strikes, tanks and air raids. At best, the citizens could start a guerrilla war, but I have a hard time believing that given the United States' massive capabilities that guerrillas would achieve any substantive victories or gain any momentum. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cxrreop","c_root_id_B":"cxrsavb","created_at_utc_A":1449597873,"created_at_utc_B":1449599071,"score_A":15,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"How many governemnt agents do you expect will murder their countrymen on the word of our governemnt?  If that number is low, that undermines your point imo.  If that number is high, are you implying giving them monopoly control over guns makes more sense?","human_ref_B":"I think you *vastly* underestimate the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare. There are more than 300 million guns in the U.S. And millions upon millions of veterans.   And our armed forces only have a couple million soldiers, some fraction of which would undoubtedly defect.  Air strikes work against hard targets. There's a *reason* why all wars that anyone wins ultimately come down to soldiers with rifles on the ground.   And those soldiers are vulnerable.   The armed forces don't actually have enough *ammunition* to kill everyone with a gun, even assuming 100% hits and optimal use of all our bombs. There aren't enough drones (nor is it possible to make enough) to watch for all of the people that would be guerrillas.  Nor enough force to protect the ammunition factories without destroying them in the process. Nor the National Guard armories.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1198.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"c4jxsj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Being against illegal immigration doesn't make you a racist This came to my mind over the recent outrage over ICE deportations.   It seems nowadays being undocumented gives you some kind of moral superiority. Remember the investment banker lady who admitted she came in the country illegally and got praised for it? I've also seen a lot of posts on social media of people \"coming out\" as undocumented and receiving a ton of support (hence why they do it). It's like admitting to shoplifting and having no consequences. You aren't morally superior for being undocumented. The smart thing to do certainly shouldn't be declaring it on Facebook.  It shouldn't be surprising when an illegal immigrant gets deported. Sad? Probably. Deserved? Possibly. Racist? Hell no. In fact race shouldn't even be a factor. Either you broke the law or you didn't. My being against illegal immigration has nothing to do with the color of your skin. We're a country of laws, make no mistake.  Of course, some people are against illegal immigration (or immigration as a whole) because of racist views, no doubt. But, we need to do away with the stigma that EVERY opinion against illegal immigration is racist.  It's high time we're able to have a discussion about illegal immigration without the race card being pulled every 2 hands.  Open to contrasting opinions, cmv.","c_root_id_A":"erwzkuw","c_root_id_B":"erwzzab","created_at_utc_A":1561363894,"created_at_utc_B":1561364522,"score_A":18,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"There's almost always an element of race in the way the debate plays out in the US. This is easy to prove: The largest vector of illegal immigrants is visa overstays. The biggest source of visa overstays is Canada. So why all the focus on the southern border?","human_ref_B":">Of course, some people are against illegal immigration (or immigration as a whole) because of racist views, no doubt. But, we need to do away with the stigma that EVERY opinion against illegal immigration is racist. It's high time we're able to have a discussion about illegal immigration without the race card being pulled every 2 seconds.   Most of the arguments I've seen against *immigrants* are not arguments against *illegal immigration.* Rather,  they are arguments that undocumented immigrants should be treated very badly.  Often,  there is a refusal to acknowledge that applying for asylum is legal,  an argument that asylum shouldn't be provided for people who will certainly face horrific violence without it, an argument that people trying to enter the country illegally should be allowed to die of heat stroke in the desert,  an argument that undocumented immigrants deserve whatever they get and shouldn't be provided with basic needs like the ability to sleep or brush their teeth,  an argument that permanently traumatizing children is acceptable as a preventive measure. These are arguments that dehumanize undocumented people,  and that dehumanization cannot be separated from the fact that most undocumented immigrants are coming from central America,  and therefore have brown skin.    On rare occassions, one might mistakenly attribute a hardline stance on immigration to racism when someone actually has a very idiosyncratic and uncommon perspective,  but this would be A) very rare and B) Virtually harmless to the person being accused of racism.  There are virtually no damages to you, beyond a bruised ego,  if someone says you hold a belief based in racism.  On the other hand,  people are being held in concentration camps and dying due to being victims of racism.  It therefore is more important to address the problem of racism than to protect people from ever being called racist.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":628.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444}
+{"post_id":"c4jxsj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Being against illegal immigration doesn't make you a racist This came to my mind over the recent outrage over ICE deportations.   It seems nowadays being undocumented gives you some kind of moral superiority. Remember the investment banker lady who admitted she came in the country illegally and got praised for it? I've also seen a lot of posts on social media of people \"coming out\" as undocumented and receiving a ton of support (hence why they do it). It's like admitting to shoplifting and having no consequences. You aren't morally superior for being undocumented. The smart thing to do certainly shouldn't be declaring it on Facebook.  It shouldn't be surprising when an illegal immigrant gets deported. Sad? Probably. Deserved? Possibly. Racist? Hell no. In fact race shouldn't even be a factor. Either you broke the law or you didn't. My being against illegal immigration has nothing to do with the color of your skin. We're a country of laws, make no mistake.  Of course, some people are against illegal immigration (or immigration as a whole) because of racist views, no doubt. But, we need to do away with the stigma that EVERY opinion against illegal immigration is racist.  It's high time we're able to have a discussion about illegal immigration without the race card being pulled every 2 hands.  Open to contrasting opinions, cmv.","c_root_id_A":"erwzzab","c_root_id_B":"erwzcsn","created_at_utc_A":1561364522,"created_at_utc_B":1561363546,"score_A":26,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":">Of course, some people are against illegal immigration (or immigration as a whole) because of racist views, no doubt. But, we need to do away with the stigma that EVERY opinion against illegal immigration is racist. It's high time we're able to have a discussion about illegal immigration without the race card being pulled every 2 seconds.   Most of the arguments I've seen against *immigrants* are not arguments against *illegal immigration.* Rather,  they are arguments that undocumented immigrants should be treated very badly.  Often,  there is a refusal to acknowledge that applying for asylum is legal,  an argument that asylum shouldn't be provided for people who will certainly face horrific violence without it, an argument that people trying to enter the country illegally should be allowed to die of heat stroke in the desert,  an argument that undocumented immigrants deserve whatever they get and shouldn't be provided with basic needs like the ability to sleep or brush their teeth,  an argument that permanently traumatizing children is acceptable as a preventive measure. These are arguments that dehumanize undocumented people,  and that dehumanization cannot be separated from the fact that most undocumented immigrants are coming from central America,  and therefore have brown skin.    On rare occassions, one might mistakenly attribute a hardline stance on immigration to racism when someone actually has a very idiosyncratic and uncommon perspective,  but this would be A) very rare and B) Virtually harmless to the person being accused of racism.  There are virtually no damages to you, beyond a bruised ego,  if someone says you hold a belief based in racism.  On the other hand,  people are being held in concentration camps and dying due to being victims of racism.  It therefore is more important to address the problem of racism than to protect people from ever being called racist.","human_ref_B":"I think there's another layer to it:  So many developed countries have illegal immigration. The vast majority of this and I mean vast is people overstaying visas or improperly using visas. So someone flies up from Jamaica, is given three months to visit and just stays. Or they have a mail order visa for migrant work, pick the vegetables and then stay.  What's racist is when people assume all people that are immigrants are coming over the border illegally and use terms like 'hordes' or 'invasion' to describe semi-literate migrants who do not have access to the visa system because of where they are born. Should they be breaking international law? No.   Is it racist to make assumptions about people from a specific geographic location? Yes.   It's also racist to find specific punishments acceptable for people based off of their ethnicity.   It's also racist to want these low paying jobs to be filled by people, but specifically disliking the people we get to fill those jobs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":976.0,"score_ratio":2.8888888889}
+{"post_id":"c4jxsj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Being against illegal immigration doesn't make you a racist This came to my mind over the recent outrage over ICE deportations.   It seems nowadays being undocumented gives you some kind of moral superiority. Remember the investment banker lady who admitted she came in the country illegally and got praised for it? I've also seen a lot of posts on social media of people \"coming out\" as undocumented and receiving a ton of support (hence why they do it). It's like admitting to shoplifting and having no consequences. You aren't morally superior for being undocumented. The smart thing to do certainly shouldn't be declaring it on Facebook.  It shouldn't be surprising when an illegal immigrant gets deported. Sad? Probably. Deserved? Possibly. Racist? Hell no. In fact race shouldn't even be a factor. Either you broke the law or you didn't. My being against illegal immigration has nothing to do with the color of your skin. We're a country of laws, make no mistake.  Of course, some people are against illegal immigration (or immigration as a whole) because of racist views, no doubt. But, we need to do away with the stigma that EVERY opinion against illegal immigration is racist.  It's high time we're able to have a discussion about illegal immigration without the race card being pulled every 2 hands.  Open to contrasting opinions, cmv.","c_root_id_A":"erwzkuw","c_root_id_B":"erwzcsn","created_at_utc_A":1561363894,"created_at_utc_B":1561363546,"score_A":18,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"There's almost always an element of race in the way the debate plays out in the US. This is easy to prove: The largest vector of illegal immigrants is visa overstays. The biggest source of visa overstays is Canada. So why all the focus on the southern border?","human_ref_B":"I think there's another layer to it:  So many developed countries have illegal immigration. The vast majority of this and I mean vast is people overstaying visas or improperly using visas. So someone flies up from Jamaica, is given three months to visit and just stays. Or they have a mail order visa for migrant work, pick the vegetables and then stay.  What's racist is when people assume all people that are immigrants are coming over the border illegally and use terms like 'hordes' or 'invasion' to describe semi-literate migrants who do not have access to the visa system because of where they are born. Should they be breaking international law? No.   Is it racist to make assumptions about people from a specific geographic location? Yes.   It's also racist to find specific punishments acceptable for people based off of their ethnicity.   It's also racist to want these low paying jobs to be filled by people, but specifically disliking the people we get to fill those jobs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":348.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"c4jxsj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Being against illegal immigration doesn't make you a racist This came to my mind over the recent outrage over ICE deportations.   It seems nowadays being undocumented gives you some kind of moral superiority. Remember the investment banker lady who admitted she came in the country illegally and got praised for it? I've also seen a lot of posts on social media of people \"coming out\" as undocumented and receiving a ton of support (hence why they do it). It's like admitting to shoplifting and having no consequences. You aren't morally superior for being undocumented. The smart thing to do certainly shouldn't be declaring it on Facebook.  It shouldn't be surprising when an illegal immigrant gets deported. Sad? Probably. Deserved? Possibly. Racist? Hell no. In fact race shouldn't even be a factor. Either you broke the law or you didn't. My being against illegal immigration has nothing to do with the color of your skin. We're a country of laws, make no mistake.  Of course, some people are against illegal immigration (or immigration as a whole) because of racist views, no doubt. But, we need to do away with the stigma that EVERY opinion against illegal immigration is racist.  It's high time we're able to have a discussion about illegal immigration without the race card being pulled every 2 hands.  Open to contrasting opinions, cmv.","c_root_id_A":"erx5zhq","c_root_id_B":"erwzcsn","created_at_utc_A":1561373647,"created_at_utc_B":1561363546,"score_A":14,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"My man. I think I can help. I\u2019m against illegal immigration and nobody I know would call me a racist. Also I am a 46 year old white male.   It\u2019s starts with the fact that I would never align myself with actual racists to get my point across or garner the votes to do so.  I could not be a republican right now.   I oppose illegal immigration because I find it propped up by industry to keep cheap labor. To me it\u2019s a small step up from slavery and I find it immoral.   There are two players breaking the law. The employers and the employees. Do we penalize the companies employing them? No we currently focus almost exclusively on the employees.  Which, if you look at it conveniently prolongs the problem. Which also, when you look at it leans almost exclusively in the favor of one group, business owners, over the other group, the illegal immigrants.    So here\u2019s how I change your view. You have the choice to align yourself with racists, or you can denounce something without their help. But as long as you\u2019re courting the racist vote and simultaneously trying to purge predominantly brown folks. You might look like a Racist.","human_ref_B":"I think there's another layer to it:  So many developed countries have illegal immigration. The vast majority of this and I mean vast is people overstaying visas or improperly using visas. So someone flies up from Jamaica, is given three months to visit and just stays. Or they have a mail order visa for migrant work, pick the vegetables and then stay.  What's racist is when people assume all people that are immigrants are coming over the border illegally and use terms like 'hordes' or 'invasion' to describe semi-literate migrants who do not have access to the visa system because of where they are born. Should they be breaking international law? No.   Is it racist to make assumptions about people from a specific geographic location? Yes.   It's also racist to find specific punishments acceptable for people based off of their ethnicity.   It's also racist to want these low paying jobs to be filled by people, but specifically disliking the people we get to fill those jobs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10101.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556}
+{"post_id":"c4jxsj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Being against illegal immigration doesn't make you a racist This came to my mind over the recent outrage over ICE deportations.   It seems nowadays being undocumented gives you some kind of moral superiority. Remember the investment banker lady who admitted she came in the country illegally and got praised for it? I've also seen a lot of posts on social media of people \"coming out\" as undocumented and receiving a ton of support (hence why they do it). It's like admitting to shoplifting and having no consequences. You aren't morally superior for being undocumented. The smart thing to do certainly shouldn't be declaring it on Facebook.  It shouldn't be surprising when an illegal immigrant gets deported. Sad? Probably. Deserved? Possibly. Racist? Hell no. In fact race shouldn't even be a factor. Either you broke the law or you didn't. My being against illegal immigration has nothing to do with the color of your skin. We're a country of laws, make no mistake.  Of course, some people are against illegal immigration (or immigration as a whole) because of racist views, no doubt. But, we need to do away with the stigma that EVERY opinion against illegal immigration is racist.  It's high time we're able to have a discussion about illegal immigration without the race card being pulled every 2 hands.  Open to contrasting opinions, cmv.","c_root_id_A":"erx0myw","c_root_id_B":"erx5zhq","created_at_utc_A":1561365564,"created_at_utc_B":1561373647,"score_A":8,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Point One: If it were about the jobs, they'd care about all the qualified professionals coming in from \"white\" countries. If it were about the economy, you'd think they'd spare some outrage for the people choosing to exploit undocumented migrant labor instead of hiring local. If it were about crime, they'd be better off looking elsewhere - undocumented immigrants provably commit far less crime(aside from simply being in the country), because of the constant threat of deportation!*  Point Two: By making the discussion about immigration from countries that racists don't consider \"white\" and then declaring it to be a real, serious issue that actually exists, you're giving authorities and \"concerned citizens\" justification to harass and intimidate people for being brown under the pretext of \"they might have been illegal.\"  Side Note:  > I've also seen a lot of posts on social media of people \"coming out\" as undocumented and receiving a ton of support (hence why they do it).  What makes you so certain they're doing it for likes? Is it so inconceivable that they're trying to, say, force people to think critically about their own preconceptions of what an undocumented immigrant does and looks like?  \\*EDIT: Not to imply at all that a brutal, looming police state is an ideal way to suppress crime.","human_ref_B":"My man. I think I can help. I\u2019m against illegal immigration and nobody I know would call me a racist. Also I am a 46 year old white male.   It\u2019s starts with the fact that I would never align myself with actual racists to get my point across or garner the votes to do so.  I could not be a republican right now.   I oppose illegal immigration because I find it propped up by industry to keep cheap labor. To me it\u2019s a small step up from slavery and I find it immoral.   There are two players breaking the law. The employers and the employees. Do we penalize the companies employing them? No we currently focus almost exclusively on the employees.  Which, if you look at it conveniently prolongs the problem. Which also, when you look at it leans almost exclusively in the favor of one group, business owners, over the other group, the illegal immigrants.    So here\u2019s how I change your view. You have the choice to align yourself with racists, or you can denounce something without their help. But as long as you\u2019re courting the racist vote and simultaneously trying to purge predominantly brown folks. You might look like a Racist.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8083.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"fdgt3j","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: There should be a maximum allowed age for running for President of the USA and 65 years is a good limit. Title basically says it all. I don't think you should be allowed to run for President of the United States if you will be more than 65 years old on inauguration day of your first term. There are multiple good reasons for this, but to start with:  1. Cognitive decline is a real thing. I don't think you need to be a doctor to understand that this is obvious. I'm not saying that all people over 65 have cognitive decline, but the limit needs to be low enough that this is not even a potential issue. 2. Increased chance of dying while in office. If you are 65 when elected and serve two terms, you are 73 when out of office. What percentage of people die or are unable to work at a demanding job before then anyway? Not worth the risk, IMO.   Mandatory retirement ages are already a thing for such professions as firefighters and pilots, and those jobs could result in at worst a couple hundred deaths if they screw up. Presidents can kill far more people, all over the world.  I think there should be a constitution amendment establishing this. For the record- I am 34. My view could be changed if I had evidence that there is only a tiny chance of cognitive decline by age 65, or if you can show me that a great majority of the population is still able to work and keep up with the great mental and physical demands of the highest stress job in the world by age 73.","c_root_id_A":"fjhb1nd","c_root_id_B":"fjhb22f","created_at_utc_A":1583344671,"created_at_utc_B":1583344678,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"While your reasoning is sound, adding any sort of discrimination into our society is a dangerous rabbit hole we shouldn't enter. It's up to the ppl to decide if age is a factor in their vote.","human_ref_B":"Voter decides I'd say. If you are convinced of these points, then don't vote for old people. But I dont think you should force this perspective onto others.   Thats the point of having a democracy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7.0,"score_ratio":1.625}
+{"post_id":"fdgt3j","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: There should be a maximum allowed age for running for President of the USA and 65 years is a good limit. Title basically says it all. I don't think you should be allowed to run for President of the United States if you will be more than 65 years old on inauguration day of your first term. There are multiple good reasons for this, but to start with:  1. Cognitive decline is a real thing. I don't think you need to be a doctor to understand that this is obvious. I'm not saying that all people over 65 have cognitive decline, but the limit needs to be low enough that this is not even a potential issue. 2. Increased chance of dying while in office. If you are 65 when elected and serve two terms, you are 73 when out of office. What percentage of people die or are unable to work at a demanding job before then anyway? Not worth the risk, IMO.   Mandatory retirement ages are already a thing for such professions as firefighters and pilots, and those jobs could result in at worst a couple hundred deaths if they screw up. Presidents can kill far more people, all over the world.  I think there should be a constitution amendment establishing this. For the record- I am 34. My view could be changed if I had evidence that there is only a tiny chance of cognitive decline by age 65, or if you can show me that a great majority of the population is still able to work and keep up with the great mental and physical demands of the highest stress job in the world by age 73.","c_root_id_A":"fjhaypk","c_root_id_B":"fjhb22f","created_at_utc_A":1583344626,"created_at_utc_B":1583344678,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"> Cognitive decline is a real thing. I don't think you need to be a doctor to understand that this is obvious. I'm not saying that all people over 65 have cognitive decline, but the limit needs to be low enough that this is not even a potential issue.  This is why the 25th amendment to the United States Constitution says that if the President becomes unable to do their job, the Vice President becomes the President.   >2. Increased chance of dying while in office. If you are 65 when elected and serve two terms, you are 73 when out of office. What percentage of people die or are unable to work at a demanding job before then anyway? Not worth the risk, IMO.   Exactly why the position of vice president exists.   I think the problem is already covered.","human_ref_B":"Voter decides I'd say. If you are convinced of these points, then don't vote for old people. But I dont think you should force this perspective onto others.   Thats the point of having a democracy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":52.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
+{"post_id":"fdgt3j","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: There should be a maximum allowed age for running for President of the USA and 65 years is a good limit. Title basically says it all. I don't think you should be allowed to run for President of the United States if you will be more than 65 years old on inauguration day of your first term. There are multiple good reasons for this, but to start with:  1. Cognitive decline is a real thing. I don't think you need to be a doctor to understand that this is obvious. I'm not saying that all people over 65 have cognitive decline, but the limit needs to be low enough that this is not even a potential issue. 2. Increased chance of dying while in office. If you are 65 when elected and serve two terms, you are 73 when out of office. What percentage of people die or are unable to work at a demanding job before then anyway? Not worth the risk, IMO.   Mandatory retirement ages are already a thing for such professions as firefighters and pilots, and those jobs could result in at worst a couple hundred deaths if they screw up. Presidents can kill far more people, all over the world.  I think there should be a constitution amendment establishing this. For the record- I am 34. My view could be changed if I had evidence that there is only a tiny chance of cognitive decline by age 65, or if you can show me that a great majority of the population is still able to work and keep up with the great mental and physical demands of the highest stress job in the world by age 73.","c_root_id_A":"fjhb1nd","c_root_id_B":"fjhaypk","created_at_utc_A":1583344671,"created_at_utc_B":1583344626,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"While your reasoning is sound, adding any sort of discrimination into our society is a dangerous rabbit hole we shouldn't enter. It's up to the ppl to decide if age is a factor in their vote.","human_ref_B":"> Cognitive decline is a real thing. I don't think you need to be a doctor to understand that this is obvious. I'm not saying that all people over 65 have cognitive decline, but the limit needs to be low enough that this is not even a potential issue.  This is why the 25th amendment to the United States Constitution says that if the President becomes unable to do their job, the Vice President becomes the President.   >2. Increased chance of dying while in office. If you are 65 when elected and serve two terms, you are 73 when out of office. What percentage of people die or are unable to work at a demanding job before then anyway? Not worth the risk, IMO.   Exactly why the position of vice president exists.   I think the problem is already covered.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":45.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hgzmnpv","c_root_id_B":"hgzntad","created_at_utc_A":1634481922,"created_at_utc_B":1634482442,"score_A":17,"score_B":412,"human_ref_A":"Are they barely functioning?  Let's take Pelosi, I can't stand her. (Trump and Biden I hate more, but they aren't representatives)  I feel she is a barely functional. I remember someone asking me if she was drunk on TV, and she really did look that way.  But she doesn't represent me in any way.  The people she does represent seem to think that she is doing an adequate job. I remember a similar experience when someone criticized a politician that did represent me. I actually have met him to. Their critique sounded good, if you had never met the guy; but if you actually knew him. You quickly realized how preposterous the claim was.","human_ref_B":"No one in Congress is there by divine right - each of them is elected every 2\/6 years by their constituents. If those constituents want someone younger, they are free to elect them. If those constituents want an 80 year old person to represent them, what right do we have to tell them they are wrong?  Putting restrictions on who can be elected is just an exercise in the minority wishing to overrule what the majority wants, and that is fundamentally undemocratic.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":520.0,"score_ratio":24.2352941176}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hgzntad","c_root_id_B":"hgzlw5a","created_at_utc_A":1634482442,"created_at_utc_B":1634481574,"score_A":412,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"No one in Congress is there by divine right - each of them is elected every 2\/6 years by their constituents. If those constituents want someone younger, they are free to elect them. If those constituents want an 80 year old person to represent them, what right do we have to tell them they are wrong?  Putting restrictions on who can be elected is just an exercise in the minority wishing to overrule what the majority wants, and that is fundamentally undemocratic.","human_ref_B":"I believe the opposite they're shouldn't be anyway limt on who can go into office it a elected position why shouldn't anyone  be eligible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":868.0,"score_ratio":82.4}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hgzsyqw","c_root_id_B":"hgzmnpv","created_at_utc_A":1634484747,"created_at_utc_B":1634481922,"score_A":78,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"You are incorrectly tying age to mental acuity, which isn't always the same thing for everybody. For some people, mental decline never happens. For some, it happens way earlier. Age isn't enough of a guideline to determine when mental acuity is decreasing and how do you even evaluate it objectively. Sure, you can establish subjective guidelines, but then you run the risk of partisanship in those guidelines.   Some parties naturally cater more to certain age groups, but saying that people aren't allowed to vote for individuals over a certain age, you are constraining the pool of available candidates for those parties, which is anti-democratic.","human_ref_B":"Are they barely functioning?  Let's take Pelosi, I can't stand her. (Trump and Biden I hate more, but they aren't representatives)  I feel she is a barely functional. I remember someone asking me if she was drunk on TV, and she really did look that way.  But she doesn't represent me in any way.  The people she does represent seem to think that she is doing an adequate job. I remember a similar experience when someone criticized a politician that did represent me. I actually have met him to. Their critique sounded good, if you had never met the guy; but if you actually knew him. You quickly realized how preposterous the claim was.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2825.0,"score_ratio":4.5882352941}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hgzsyqw","c_root_id_B":"hgzr40b","created_at_utc_A":1634484747,"created_at_utc_B":1634483929,"score_A":78,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You are incorrectly tying age to mental acuity, which isn't always the same thing for everybody. For some people, mental decline never happens. For some, it happens way earlier. Age isn't enough of a guideline to determine when mental acuity is decreasing and how do you even evaluate it objectively. Sure, you can establish subjective guidelines, but then you run the risk of partisanship in those guidelines.   Some parties naturally cater more to certain age groups, but saying that people aren't allowed to vote for individuals over a certain age, you are constraining the pool of available candidates for those parties, which is anti-democratic.","human_ref_B":"It is, by definition, ageism. Though just because it's an \"-ism\" doesn't mean it's not a good idea.  Though I'd prefer cognitive testing once politicians reach a certain age instead. A 76 year old can still have cognitive abilities well above that of the average 30 year old. Cognitive decline is a bigger deal for people who weren't very bright to begin with (Trump\/Biden).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":818.0,"score_ratio":13.0}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hgzlw5a","c_root_id_B":"hgzsyqw","created_at_utc_A":1634481574,"created_at_utc_B":1634484747,"score_A":5,"score_B":78,"human_ref_A":"I believe the opposite they're shouldn't be anyway limt on who can go into office it a elected position why shouldn't anyone  be eligible?","human_ref_B":"You are incorrectly tying age to mental acuity, which isn't always the same thing for everybody. For some people, mental decline never happens. For some, it happens way earlier. Age isn't enough of a guideline to determine when mental acuity is decreasing and how do you even evaluate it objectively. Sure, you can establish subjective guidelines, but then you run the risk of partisanship in those guidelines.   Some parties naturally cater more to certain age groups, but saying that people aren't allowed to vote for individuals over a certain age, you are constraining the pool of available candidates for those parties, which is anti-democratic.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3173.0,"score_ratio":15.6}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hgzmnpv","c_root_id_B":"hgzlw5a","created_at_utc_A":1634481922,"created_at_utc_B":1634481574,"score_A":17,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Are they barely functioning?  Let's take Pelosi, I can't stand her. (Trump and Biden I hate more, but they aren't representatives)  I feel she is a barely functional. I remember someone asking me if she was drunk on TV, and she really did look that way.  But she doesn't represent me in any way.  The people she does represent seem to think that she is doing an adequate job. I remember a similar experience when someone criticized a politician that did represent me. I actually have met him to. Their critique sounded good, if you had never met the guy; but if you actually knew him. You quickly realized how preposterous the claim was.","human_ref_B":"I believe the opposite they're shouldn't be anyway limt on who can go into office it a elected position why shouldn't anyone  be eligible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":348.0,"score_ratio":3.4}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hh04hol","c_root_id_B":"hh03ieg","created_at_utc_A":1634489686,"created_at_utc_B":1634489284,"score_A":12,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I would consider this, but I do have one question\/clarification. Is the age cap between citizen and politician actually indicative of anything?  When you mention the disparity between the average age of a US House member is 58 and average American is 38 years old, is this really a good measure?  Would it be more accurate to compare the average age of a Rep with the average age of the US voter, which is 45-46?  Or all Americans over the age of 18 (couldn't find that number)? Seriously asking because I don't know, but including minors seems like an inaccurate comparison.  Because including minors with citizens drags the average down, while there is never a situation where minors serves in congress.  Also, 18 year olds usually don't jump into politics right away. AOC is young, but was still 27 when first elected, almost a decade over 18.  So the age of someone serving in politics is going to naturally be higher than the population, by at least 10 years. If we were to compare the age gap of 45 (avg age of voters) for the population and 58 for the House, that's not really that far off.   What is this disparity in other countries?  Does Canada or Germany have a smaller gap?  The average age of German party members (is that politicians?) seems to be in the upper 50's too.  So my question is two fold -    1) Isn't the relevant age gap closer to 12-13 years, not 20+?  and    2) Considering that young politicians are already at least a decade older than the youngest voters, wouldn't a 10-15 age gap between politicians and voters be more of a natural gap?","human_ref_B":">70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times  The above is the exact definition of ageism. Substitute \"70+ year olds\" with \"Women\" and it becomes sexism.  However, your argument has an even bigger flaw. Feinstein is not appointed but elected by the people. Why do you want to deny the people to 3lect whoever they want? Who will make such a decision?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":402.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hh04hol","c_root_id_B":"hgzr40b","created_at_utc_A":1634489686,"created_at_utc_B":1634483929,"score_A":12,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I would consider this, but I do have one question\/clarification. Is the age cap between citizen and politician actually indicative of anything?  When you mention the disparity between the average age of a US House member is 58 and average American is 38 years old, is this really a good measure?  Would it be more accurate to compare the average age of a Rep with the average age of the US voter, which is 45-46?  Or all Americans over the age of 18 (couldn't find that number)? Seriously asking because I don't know, but including minors seems like an inaccurate comparison.  Because including minors with citizens drags the average down, while there is never a situation where minors serves in congress.  Also, 18 year olds usually don't jump into politics right away. AOC is young, but was still 27 when first elected, almost a decade over 18.  So the age of someone serving in politics is going to naturally be higher than the population, by at least 10 years. If we were to compare the age gap of 45 (avg age of voters) for the population and 58 for the House, that's not really that far off.   What is this disparity in other countries?  Does Canada or Germany have a smaller gap?  The average age of German party members (is that politicians?) seems to be in the upper 50's too.  So my question is two fold -    1) Isn't the relevant age gap closer to 12-13 years, not 20+?  and    2) Considering that young politicians are already at least a decade older than the youngest voters, wouldn't a 10-15 age gap between politicians and voters be more of a natural gap?","human_ref_B":"It is, by definition, ageism. Though just because it's an \"-ism\" doesn't mean it's not a good idea.  Though I'd prefer cognitive testing once politicians reach a certain age instead. A 76 year old can still have cognitive abilities well above that of the average 30 year old. Cognitive decline is a bigger deal for people who weren't very bright to begin with (Trump\/Biden).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5757.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hgzlw5a","c_root_id_B":"hh04hol","created_at_utc_A":1634481574,"created_at_utc_B":1634489686,"score_A":5,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I believe the opposite they're shouldn't be anyway limt on who can go into office it a elected position why shouldn't anyone  be eligible?","human_ref_B":"I would consider this, but I do have one question\/clarification. Is the age cap between citizen and politician actually indicative of anything?  When you mention the disparity between the average age of a US House member is 58 and average American is 38 years old, is this really a good measure?  Would it be more accurate to compare the average age of a Rep with the average age of the US voter, which is 45-46?  Or all Americans over the age of 18 (couldn't find that number)? Seriously asking because I don't know, but including minors seems like an inaccurate comparison.  Because including minors with citizens drags the average down, while there is never a situation where minors serves in congress.  Also, 18 year olds usually don't jump into politics right away. AOC is young, but was still 27 when first elected, almost a decade over 18.  So the age of someone serving in politics is going to naturally be higher than the population, by at least 10 years. If we were to compare the age gap of 45 (avg age of voters) for the population and 58 for the House, that's not really that far off.   What is this disparity in other countries?  Does Canada or Germany have a smaller gap?  The average age of German party members (is that politicians?) seems to be in the upper 50's too.  So my question is two fold -    1) Isn't the relevant age gap closer to 12-13 years, not 20+?  and    2) Considering that young politicians are already at least a decade older than the youngest voters, wouldn't a 10-15 age gap between politicians and voters be more of a natural gap?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8112.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hgzr40b","c_root_id_B":"hh03ieg","created_at_utc_A":1634483929,"created_at_utc_B":1634489284,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"It is, by definition, ageism. Though just because it's an \"-ism\" doesn't mean it's not a good idea.  Though I'd prefer cognitive testing once politicians reach a certain age instead. A 76 year old can still have cognitive abilities well above that of the average 30 year old. Cognitive decline is a bigger deal for people who weren't very bright to begin with (Trump\/Biden).","human_ref_B":">70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times  The above is the exact definition of ageism. Substitute \"70+ year olds\" with \"Women\" and it becomes sexism.  However, your argument has an even bigger flaw. Feinstein is not appointed but elected by the people. Why do you want to deny the people to 3lect whoever they want? Who will make such a decision?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5355.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hh03ieg","c_root_id_B":"hgzlw5a","created_at_utc_A":1634489284,"created_at_utc_B":1634481574,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times  The above is the exact definition of ageism. Substitute \"70+ year olds\" with \"Women\" and it becomes sexism.  However, your argument has an even bigger flaw. Feinstein is not appointed but elected by the people. Why do you want to deny the people to 3lect whoever they want? Who will make such a decision?","human_ref_B":"I believe the opposite they're shouldn't be anyway limt on who can go into office it a elected position why shouldn't anyone  be eligible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7710.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"q9zuua","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Term limits on the basis of age for United States elected federal representatives is not ageism, its practical and needed. The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.  70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is \\~58 years old and that of the Senate is \\~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, \\~38 years old.   All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.   Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups\/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official\u2019s term expired.  I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn\u2019t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship\/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?    We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn\u2019t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?   Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.","c_root_id_A":"hgzr40b","c_root_id_B":"hgzlw5a","created_at_utc_A":1634483929,"created_at_utc_B":1634481574,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"It is, by definition, ageism. Though just because it's an \"-ism\" doesn't mean it's not a good idea.  Though I'd prefer cognitive testing once politicians reach a certain age instead. A 76 year old can still have cognitive abilities well above that of the average 30 year old. Cognitive decline is a bigger deal for people who weren't very bright to begin with (Trump\/Biden).","human_ref_B":"I believe the opposite they're shouldn't be anyway limt on who can go into office it a elected position why shouldn't anyone  be eligible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2355.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i61xsie","c_root_id_B":"i622d06","created_at_utc_A":1650837424,"created_at_utc_B":1650839437,"score_A":86,"score_B":202,"human_ref_A":"I agree somewhat however, can we also include romantic minorties? Romantic orientation tends to be overlooked.  In that case, the acronym would be GRSM (gender, romantic and sexual minorities).","human_ref_B":"Wasn't there an issue with pedophiles trying to claim membership in this acronym, or a similar one? That alone seems reason to keep the more specific alphabet soup.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2013.0,"score_ratio":2.3488372093}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i61xpmd","c_root_id_B":"i622d06","created_at_utc_A":1650837389,"created_at_utc_B":1650839437,"score_A":34,"score_B":202,"human_ref_A":"LGBTQ works just fine, I have no idea what the IA2S+ means. Seems like people are trying to use the LGBT label as something that encompasses anything that\u2019s not a heterosexual gender\/sexuality. Seems like you\u2019ve been exposed to too many bad examples of this phrase","human_ref_B":"Wasn't there an issue with pedophiles trying to claim membership in this acronym, or a similar one? That alone seems reason to keep the more specific alphabet soup.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2048.0,"score_ratio":5.9411764706}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i61xsie","c_root_id_B":"i62p0em","created_at_utc_A":1650837424,"created_at_utc_B":1650849920,"score_A":86,"score_B":90,"human_ref_A":"I agree somewhat however, can we also include romantic minorties? Romantic orientation tends to be overlooked.  In that case, the acronym would be GRSM (gender, romantic and sexual minorities).","human_ref_B":"Remember when the rainbow flag represented the whole of the LGBT+ community? Also Remember when LGBT+ was the acronym? Remember when the + was actually useful because more letters and numbers weren't added?  Pepe ridge Remembers.  Also wth is 2S?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12496.0,"score_ratio":1.0465116279}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i61xpmd","c_root_id_B":"i62p0em","created_at_utc_A":1650837389,"created_at_utc_B":1650849920,"score_A":34,"score_B":90,"human_ref_A":"LGBTQ works just fine, I have no idea what the IA2S+ means. Seems like people are trying to use the LGBT label as something that encompasses anything that\u2019s not a heterosexual gender\/sexuality. Seems like you\u2019ve been exposed to too many bad examples of this phrase","human_ref_B":"Remember when the rainbow flag represented the whole of the LGBT+ community? Also Remember when LGBT+ was the acronym? Remember when the + was actually useful because more letters and numbers weren't added?  Pepe ridge Remembers.  Also wth is 2S?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12531.0,"score_ratio":2.6470588235}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i62p0em","c_root_id_B":"i62oiao","created_at_utc_A":1650849920,"created_at_utc_B":1650849692,"score_A":90,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Remember when the rainbow flag represented the whole of the LGBT+ community? Also Remember when LGBT+ was the acronym? Remember when the + was actually useful because more letters and numbers weren't added?  Pepe ridge Remembers.  Also wth is 2S?","human_ref_B":"I agree purely because you wouldn\u2019t offend people when you left out letters because I don\u2019t remember what they all stand for and I thought the plus included everything that wasn\u2019t one of the main ones.  Like lesbian gay, bi, trans + = everyone\/thing else","labels":1,"seconds_difference":228.0,"score_ratio":11.25}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i61xpmd","c_root_id_B":"i61xsie","created_at_utc_A":1650837389,"created_at_utc_B":1650837424,"score_A":34,"score_B":86,"human_ref_A":"LGBTQ works just fine, I have no idea what the IA2S+ means. Seems like people are trying to use the LGBT label as something that encompasses anything that\u2019s not a heterosexual gender\/sexuality. Seems like you\u2019ve been exposed to too many bad examples of this phrase","human_ref_B":"I agree somewhat however, can we also include romantic minorties? Romantic orientation tends to be overlooked.  In that case, the acronym would be GRSM (gender, romantic and sexual minorities).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":35.0,"score_ratio":2.5294117647}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i61xpmd","c_root_id_B":"i63cne5","created_at_utc_A":1650837389,"created_at_utc_B":1650861929,"score_A":34,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"LGBTQ works just fine, I have no idea what the IA2S+ means. Seems like people are trying to use the LGBT label as something that encompasses anything that\u2019s not a heterosexual gender\/sexuality. Seems like you\u2019ve been exposed to too many bad examples of this phrase","human_ref_B":"nah, it should just go back to LGBT+. Not saying to not include questioning, intersex or asexual people, but an acronym with more than 4 letters defeats the point of an acronym. That\u2019s the whole reason why they added the +.  Sexual and gender minorities is too broad. As many people have stated in this thread, it would allow pedophiles and zoophiles to claim the label as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24540.0,"score_ratio":1.2647058824}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i62u2ju","c_root_id_B":"i63cne5","created_at_utc_A":1650852232,"created_at_utc_B":1650861929,"score_A":28,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"There's a reason most people just say LGBT or LGBT+. It's the broadly known and accepted term for the community. There's been plenty of proposed alternatives (QUILTBAG, GSM, etc) which never actually pick up more traction because only a slim minority of the community actually use it.","human_ref_B":"nah, it should just go back to LGBT+. Not saying to not include questioning, intersex or asexual people, but an acronym with more than 4 letters defeats the point of an acronym. That\u2019s the whole reason why they added the +.  Sexual and gender minorities is too broad. As many people have stated in this thread, it would allow pedophiles and zoophiles to claim the label as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9697.0,"score_ratio":1.5357142857}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i63cne5","c_root_id_B":"i62oiao","created_at_utc_A":1650861929,"created_at_utc_B":1650849692,"score_A":43,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"nah, it should just go back to LGBT+. Not saying to not include questioning, intersex or asexual people, but an acronym with more than 4 letters defeats the point of an acronym. That\u2019s the whole reason why they added the +.  Sexual and gender minorities is too broad. As many people have stated in this thread, it would allow pedophiles and zoophiles to claim the label as well.","human_ref_B":"I agree purely because you wouldn\u2019t offend people when you left out letters because I don\u2019t remember what they all stand for and I thought the plus included everything that wasn\u2019t one of the main ones.  Like lesbian gay, bi, trans + = everyone\/thing else","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12237.0,"score_ratio":5.375}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i63cne5","c_root_id_B":"i6394ga","created_at_utc_A":1650861929,"created_at_utc_B":1650859875,"score_A":43,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"nah, it should just go back to LGBT+. Not saying to not include questioning, intersex or asexual people, but an acronym with more than 4 letters defeats the point of an acronym. That\u2019s the whole reason why they added the +.  Sexual and gender minorities is too broad. As many people have stated in this thread, it would allow pedophiles and zoophiles to claim the label as well.","human_ref_B":"If sexualitt is a spectrum then none of these are minorities. Especially if you include \"ally\" as a potential A, I suspect the former term represents the majority of people. But in any case, if you believe sex and gender exist on a broad field, it does not make sense to speak of minorities, as these relie on categories rather than continuities.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2054.0,"score_ratio":6.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i62oiao","c_root_id_B":"i62u2ju","created_at_utc_A":1650849692,"created_at_utc_B":1650852232,"score_A":8,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"I agree purely because you wouldn\u2019t offend people when you left out letters because I don\u2019t remember what they all stand for and I thought the plus included everything that wasn\u2019t one of the main ones.  Like lesbian gay, bi, trans + = everyone\/thing else","human_ref_B":"There's a reason most people just say LGBT or LGBT+. It's the broadly known and accepted term for the community. There's been plenty of proposed alternatives (QUILTBAG, GSM, etc) which never actually pick up more traction because only a slim minority of the community actually use it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2540.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i63hkce","c_root_id_B":"i62oiao","created_at_utc_A":1650865117,"created_at_utc_B":1650849692,"score_A":14,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"No acronym is needed - it\u2019s not a community. What exactly are we trying to refer to? In what sense are intersex people, asexuals, and gay men part of a community?  It\u2019s hard for me to see how a lesbian who fought for the rights of same-sex attracted people even has common political cause with a trans activist who believes attraction should be based on gender and sex is not a valid category.  The best lesson of the big acronym is diverse groups who seem like ideological enemies don\u2019t fight each other much when they are under a common flag. We could probably get a lot done if we were able to create a super acronym and conservatives and everyone else together with us under a common banner\u2026 maybe we could create one that means liberty and justice for all\u2026","human_ref_B":"I agree purely because you wouldn\u2019t offend people when you left out letters because I don\u2019t remember what they all stand for and I thought the plus included everything that wasn\u2019t one of the main ones.  Like lesbian gay, bi, trans + = everyone\/thing else","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15425.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i6394ga","c_root_id_B":"i63hkce","created_at_utc_A":1650859875,"created_at_utc_B":1650865117,"score_A":7,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"If sexualitt is a spectrum then none of these are minorities. Especially if you include \"ally\" as a potential A, I suspect the former term represents the majority of people. But in any case, if you believe sex and gender exist on a broad field, it does not make sense to speak of minorities, as these relie on categories rather than continuities.","human_ref_B":"No acronym is needed - it\u2019s not a community. What exactly are we trying to refer to? In what sense are intersex people, asexuals, and gay men part of a community?  It\u2019s hard for me to see how a lesbian who fought for the rights of same-sex attracted people even has common political cause with a trans activist who believes attraction should be based on gender and sex is not a valid category.  The best lesson of the big acronym is diverse groups who seem like ideological enemies don\u2019t fight each other much when they are under a common flag. We could probably get a lot done if we were able to create a super acronym and conservatives and everyone else together with us under a common banner\u2026 maybe we could create one that means liberty and justice for all\u2026","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5242.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i63dhd2","c_root_id_B":"i63hkce","created_at_utc_A":1650862444,"created_at_utc_B":1650865117,"score_A":5,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I think we should go back to just lgbt or maybe lgbt+. It\u2019s kinda funny, you can effectively date any article from the past 10 years by how many letters they used in lgbt. From lgb to lgbt to lgbt+ to lgbtq+ etc.","human_ref_B":"No acronym is needed - it\u2019s not a community. What exactly are we trying to refer to? In what sense are intersex people, asexuals, and gay men part of a community?  It\u2019s hard for me to see how a lesbian who fought for the rights of same-sex attracted people even has common political cause with a trans activist who believes attraction should be based on gender and sex is not a valid category.  The best lesson of the big acronym is diverse groups who seem like ideological enemies don\u2019t fight each other much when they are under a common flag. We could probably get a lot done if we were able to create a super acronym and conservatives and everyone else together with us under a common banner\u2026 maybe we could create one that means liberty and justice for all\u2026","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2673.0,"score_ratio":2.8}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i62oiao","c_root_id_B":"i63vrmp","created_at_utc_A":1650849692,"created_at_utc_B":1650876317,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I agree purely because you wouldn\u2019t offend people when you left out letters because I don\u2019t remember what they all stand for and I thought the plus included everything that wasn\u2019t one of the main ones.  Like lesbian gay, bi, trans + = everyone\/thing else","human_ref_B":"What about Bent, as opposed to Straight","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26625.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i6394ga","c_root_id_B":"i63vrmp","created_at_utc_A":1650859875,"created_at_utc_B":1650876317,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"If sexualitt is a spectrum then none of these are minorities. Especially if you include \"ally\" as a potential A, I suspect the former term represents the majority of people. But in any case, if you believe sex and gender exist on a broad field, it does not make sense to speak of minorities, as these relie on categories rather than continuities.","human_ref_B":"What about Bent, as opposed to Straight","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16442.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i63vrmp","c_root_id_B":"i63nnga","created_at_utc_A":1650876317,"created_at_utc_B":1650869548,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What about Bent, as opposed to Straight","human_ref_B":"Yeah a lot of us figured that too, so we went for GSRM (gender, sexual and romantic minority) but most people know LGBT by now so it\u2019s really hard to change.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6769.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"ub5bel","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: LGBTQIA2S+ should be changed to SGM - sex and gender minorities Now before you get upset, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting this change because it would make the term easier for straight people to say. Rather, I think that sexuality is a spectrum, and grouping people into one box or letter might make some feel like they don't fit. We say \"racial minorities\" both because it would be difficult to name each one in an acronym but also because some people fall into multiple categories - I feel we could do the same by using SGM. Let me also be clear that I don't think SGM should take the place of a specific sex\/gender identity if an individual has one - if someone identifies as bi, we should call them bi. If someone identifies as asexual, we should call them asexual (and etc); but, if we are referring to a *community*, I think SGM makes more sense.","c_root_id_A":"i63vrmp","c_root_id_B":"i63dhd2","created_at_utc_A":1650876317,"created_at_utc_B":1650862444,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What about Bent, as opposed to Straight","human_ref_B":"I think we should go back to just lgbt or maybe lgbt+. It\u2019s kinda funny, you can effectively date any article from the past 10 years by how many letters they used in lgbt. From lgb to lgbt to lgbt+ to lgbtq+ etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13873.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"8wa9mt","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: There is no unified thing called Political Correctness, that we can get rid of. Often I come across arguments stating that we should get rid of political correctness. There is usually, but not always, a reference to Freedom of Speech and very often there is mention of the slippery slope that presumably comes with restricting speech in any way. I am having trouble taking this comments seriously because they seem to clearly be from people who feel like they are under attack somehow when a person disagrees with them.   I\u2019ve come to believe that there is no substantial thing labeled Political Correctness that we have the power to get rid of. There is the reality that people can and often do make erroneous statements and naturally it doesn\u2019t feel great when a belief you hold as true is challenged or even corrected.   Is there something off about this view?","c_root_id_A":"e1tvr5a","c_root_id_B":"e1tws1z","created_at_utc_A":1530796417,"created_at_utc_B":1530797579,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Political Correctness is just a loaded way of talking about politeness and basic decency. I say loaded because the term seems to only be invoked in response to requests that people be polite\/decent to discriminated or non-privileged groups, and as you note, only ever in under the premise that this is somehow a violation of free speech. As for getting rid of decency and politeness, that's absolutely something we can do. While political correctness is more of an abstract concept, politeness and decency are pretty self-evident. We could simply reject them in our every day lives, or even institute laws require crudeness in our discourse.","human_ref_B":"> There is no unified thing called Political Correctness, that we can get rid of.  The difficulty is that you don't see or hear people advocating for political correctness directly. No one is saying: let's be more politically correct, or let's raise our standards of political correctness. They would instead phrase it very differently, like \"use age-appropriate speech\", \"avoid offensive language\", \"be polite\" etc. It's a term with many connotations and contexts.  There theoretically is a way to get rid of all political correctness: if we stopped caring about *anything* someone says. It would address all possible connotations of political correctness. It just isn't very feasible in practice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1162.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"8wa9mt","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: There is no unified thing called Political Correctness, that we can get rid of. Often I come across arguments stating that we should get rid of political correctness. There is usually, but not always, a reference to Freedom of Speech and very often there is mention of the slippery slope that presumably comes with restricting speech in any way. I am having trouble taking this comments seriously because they seem to clearly be from people who feel like they are under attack somehow when a person disagrees with them.   I\u2019ve come to believe that there is no substantial thing labeled Political Correctness that we have the power to get rid of. There is the reality that people can and often do make erroneous statements and naturally it doesn\u2019t feel great when a belief you hold as true is challenged or even corrected.   Is there something off about this view?","c_root_id_A":"e1tw90p","c_root_id_B":"e1tws1z","created_at_utc_A":1530796983,"created_at_utc_B":1530797579,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think you are mostly right, but - political correctness, or things labeled as such, is not quite as general as being about beliefs being challenged, and I think it involves people's sense of social belonging.  Let's take, as an example, the use of the word \"retard.\" This has at times been a hot spot of the debate.  When someone wants to keep using that word -- yes, there's a belief involved, but a very specific kind of belief.  In general, such a person says, \"of course I don't disrespect people with learning disabilities, I'm using this word differently\"  So, here we see two things: a) a belief in their own goodness\/decency; and b) a belief that others make the same linguistic distinction as they do.  I think it's important to recognize the latter as part of the \"PC\" question. It's an assumption that one's view is aligned with the rest of society  To be challenged on that is sometimes seen not as being challenged on beliefs, but either  Being challenged on one's status in society\/culture.  Or, an attack on that society culture itself.","human_ref_B":"> There is no unified thing called Political Correctness, that we can get rid of.  The difficulty is that you don't see or hear people advocating for political correctness directly. No one is saying: let's be more politically correct, or let's raise our standards of political correctness. They would instead phrase it very differently, like \"use age-appropriate speech\", \"avoid offensive language\", \"be polite\" etc. It's a term with many connotations and contexts.  There theoretically is a way to get rid of all political correctness: if we stopped caring about *anything* someone says. It would address all possible connotations of political correctness. It just isn't very feasible in practice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":596.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"8wa9mt","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: There is no unified thing called Political Correctness, that we can get rid of. Often I come across arguments stating that we should get rid of political correctness. There is usually, but not always, a reference to Freedom of Speech and very often there is mention of the slippery slope that presumably comes with restricting speech in any way. I am having trouble taking this comments seriously because they seem to clearly be from people who feel like they are under attack somehow when a person disagrees with them.   I\u2019ve come to believe that there is no substantial thing labeled Political Correctness that we have the power to get rid of. There is the reality that people can and often do make erroneous statements and naturally it doesn\u2019t feel great when a belief you hold as true is challenged or even corrected.   Is there something off about this view?","c_root_id_A":"e1tw90p","c_root_id_B":"e1uoujp","created_at_utc_A":1530796983,"created_at_utc_B":1530822372,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think you are mostly right, but - political correctness, or things labeled as such, is not quite as general as being about beliefs being challenged, and I think it involves people's sense of social belonging.  Let's take, as an example, the use of the word \"retard.\" This has at times been a hot spot of the debate.  When someone wants to keep using that word -- yes, there's a belief involved, but a very specific kind of belief.  In general, such a person says, \"of course I don't disrespect people with learning disabilities, I'm using this word differently\"  So, here we see two things: a) a belief in their own goodness\/decency; and b) a belief that others make the same linguistic distinction as they do.  I think it's important to recognize the latter as part of the \"PC\" question. It's an assumption that one's view is aligned with the rest of society  To be challenged on that is sometimes seen not as being challenged on beliefs, but either  Being challenged on one's status in society\/culture.  Or, an attack on that society culture itself.","human_ref_B":"The idea of political correctness first originated with the Nazi and Bolshevik governments in Europe in the interwar years, where \"political correctness\" means to hold opinions and views which adhere to those ones considered to be acceptable by the society. If we were to take this definition of political correctness then getting rid of it is not only possible but necessary for society to progress philosophically. But I think for the most part we're not talking about this classical definition which is essentially thought policing but rather the modern phenomenon.  If we are to talk about the modern form of political correctness, I would define it as mostly language-focused rather than thought focused. Most of what people call political correctness is avoiding using forms of expression which are considered to be derogatory towards groups which have been historically disadvantaged. Put simply, don't call minorities racial slurs, don't call autistic people retards etc.etc.  So I'll first make a argument for it being something we can get rid of. I'll begin by saying this won't be easy, since its not something physical which we can simply ban but rather something of a movement. However, it's not an overt movement like say second wave feminism or the civil rights movement but a more thought-based movement whose underlying goal is for everyone to behave in a politically correct way as outlined in my definition. So to get rid of it would essentially involve for a counter-movement to form against it, and point out its dangers (which I'll discuss later), eventually winning the debate in people's minds and thus people will stray away from political correctness.   Basically, right now most people are saying behaving and encouraging others to behave this way is good, how we get rid of it is behaving differently and spread convincing arguments about why behaving in such a way is bad. For a slightly extreme example, the anti-fascist movement in the UK before WW2 can be used as somewhat of an example, where people who feel that a dangerous idea is spreading come together and do something against it.  This isn't directly related but I'll also talk in brief about why I think it's good to fight against it. I think some people who first started the movement, primarily among educated young people, had good motives. Certainly we should try to not call people derogatory slurs. However, the movement has now expanded beyond trying to get people to not use them and into the realm of condemning anyone who does. This is dangerous since those slurs have been around for a long time, and its easy for people to use them since it has become a habit, especially among older people. Raising small issues to ridiculous levels, like implying that someone has deep rooted pro-slavery sentiments because they used a slur, will only make people resent it even more. Another reason is by shutting down people who are not perfectly politically correct it bars the lower levels of society from participating. While college educated people usually have a good grasp on things, those who are less fortunate sometimes won't, and assuming the worst of them because of a slip of the tongue  will not help society advance dialogue as a whole.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25389.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"8wa9mt","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: There is no unified thing called Political Correctness, that we can get rid of. Often I come across arguments stating that we should get rid of political correctness. There is usually, but not always, a reference to Freedom of Speech and very often there is mention of the slippery slope that presumably comes with restricting speech in any way. I am having trouble taking this comments seriously because they seem to clearly be from people who feel like they are under attack somehow when a person disagrees with them.   I\u2019ve come to believe that there is no substantial thing labeled Political Correctness that we have the power to get rid of. There is the reality that people can and often do make erroneous statements and naturally it doesn\u2019t feel great when a belief you hold as true is challenged or even corrected.   Is there something off about this view?","c_root_id_A":"e1uoujp","c_root_id_B":"e1ucduu","created_at_utc_A":1530822372,"created_at_utc_B":1530811738,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The idea of political correctness first originated with the Nazi and Bolshevik governments in Europe in the interwar years, where \"political correctness\" means to hold opinions and views which adhere to those ones considered to be acceptable by the society. If we were to take this definition of political correctness then getting rid of it is not only possible but necessary for society to progress philosophically. But I think for the most part we're not talking about this classical definition which is essentially thought policing but rather the modern phenomenon.  If we are to talk about the modern form of political correctness, I would define it as mostly language-focused rather than thought focused. Most of what people call political correctness is avoiding using forms of expression which are considered to be derogatory towards groups which have been historically disadvantaged. Put simply, don't call minorities racial slurs, don't call autistic people retards etc.etc.  So I'll first make a argument for it being something we can get rid of. I'll begin by saying this won't be easy, since its not something physical which we can simply ban but rather something of a movement. However, it's not an overt movement like say second wave feminism or the civil rights movement but a more thought-based movement whose underlying goal is for everyone to behave in a politically correct way as outlined in my definition. So to get rid of it would essentially involve for a counter-movement to form against it, and point out its dangers (which I'll discuss later), eventually winning the debate in people's minds and thus people will stray away from political correctness.   Basically, right now most people are saying behaving and encouraging others to behave this way is good, how we get rid of it is behaving differently and spread convincing arguments about why behaving in such a way is bad. For a slightly extreme example, the anti-fascist movement in the UK before WW2 can be used as somewhat of an example, where people who feel that a dangerous idea is spreading come together and do something against it.  This isn't directly related but I'll also talk in brief about why I think it's good to fight against it. I think some people who first started the movement, primarily among educated young people, had good motives. Certainly we should try to not call people derogatory slurs. However, the movement has now expanded beyond trying to get people to not use them and into the realm of condemning anyone who does. This is dangerous since those slurs have been around for a long time, and its easy for people to use them since it has become a habit, especially among older people. Raising small issues to ridiculous levels, like implying that someone has deep rooted pro-slavery sentiments because they used a slur, will only make people resent it even more. Another reason is by shutting down people who are not perfectly politically correct it bars the lower levels of society from participating. While college educated people usually have a good grasp on things, those who are less fortunate sometimes won't, and assuming the worst of them because of a slip of the tongue  will not help society advance dialogue as a whole.","human_ref_B":"Political Correctness is the idea that language can impact reality. If we change how people speak - we can change people's attitudes.   To Quote Syracuse University : People-first\" or \"person-first\" language is a way of describing disability that involves putting the word \"person\" or \"people\" before the word \"disability\" or the name of a disability, rather than placing the disability first and using it as an adjective.  Some examples of people-first language might include saying \"person with a disability,\" \"woman with cerebral palsy,\" and \"man with an intellectual disability.\"  The purpose of people-first language is to promote the idea that someone's disability label is just a disability label\u2014not the defining characteristic of the entire individual.  Many guides on disability language and etiquette may likely emphasize using person-first language.   Source: http:\/\/sudcc.syr.edu\/LanguageGuide\/  The question is - does this work - does changing how people speak change how people thing? Or does it just add another derogatory term to the pile without influencing behavior.   From the same source : Being \"politically correct\" does not make a term automatically inoffensive to a group of people; indeed, many \"politically correct\" words and phrases used to refer to disability can actually be insulting to some of the people to whom these labels are attached.  In short - Political correctness is the intentional use of particular words over other words when discussing particular groups - with the goal of reducing harm towards that group. The reason to keep it, would be by endorsing the idea that language impacts behavior. The reason to toss it would be, that all you are doing is adding new terms to the hate dictionary, and if someone is pulling from the hate dictionary anyway - does it really matter which term they use???   Edit, Example: Compare the following - \"Are you some kind of moron or something\" \"Are you some kind of retard or something\" \"Do you got the ADD or something\" - if you feel one of these is preferable to the other two, then you believe in Political Correctness - if you feel all three all reflect the same underlying hate, and are just pulls at random from the hate dictionary, then you would oppose Political Correctness.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10634.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"4mx6bc","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: Political correctness is not efficient, productive or healthy In the modern world, we go out of our way to ensure that things like racism, sexism, etc are deterred, and I think that's a positive thing. However, trying to solve the problem with this PC philosophy of language is not helpful and shifts our focus to a much more shallow place.  Let's take a very popular real world example: \"the N word.\" I think Louis C.K. kind of has the right idea here (NSFW). For those of you who don't care to watch it, the basic idea is that saying \"the N word\" is effectively the exact same thing as saying the actual word. Why? Because it should be the intention behind the word, the context of the word that matters, not the word itself. If our intentions are clear, it shouldn't matter the word we use. If the speaker has fulfilled their responsibility of making their intentions clear, then the listener should follow through with their responsibility of interpreting what's said based on those conveyed intentions. A good example of when this philosophy of language actually prevails (at least in many familiar circles) is swearing. Swearing in general is considered offensive, rude and aggressive, yet in a close circle of friends, swearing is often quite common and casual. No one takes offense because they all understand that nobody is actually being hostile. But, when a friend shows genuine signs of anger and starts throwing around curse words in a genuinely aggressive manner, their friends can interpret them different based on the *context.* Not the word itself, but the *context* and the *intentions* that are being conveyed.  In PC language philosophy, the intent behind the word becomes much less relevant, as the zeitgeist has determined that some words are inherently evil until they arbitrarily evolve to be less offensive. So based on this, we make up rules like \"this word belongs to that culture or that group. You're *not allowed* to say it. It doesn't matter what the context was or if you were just quoting something or if everyone in the room is fine with it, you're just not allowed. To me, this doesn't solve any kind of problem. If someone has something genuinely offensive to say, they're going to find a way to say it with or without this arbitrary list of \"evil words,\" and isn't that what matters? Shouldn't the focus be more on evil ideas instead of evil words? I think this is a first step in foregoing intelligent discussion and ultimately solves nothing.","c_root_id_A":"d3z6vrz","c_root_id_B":"d3z2951","created_at_utc_A":1465284300,"created_at_utc_B":1465273216,"score_A":23,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I don't think you're quite aware of what PC is. Political correctness is a movement that began in the 80s-90s to address some of the problems in our common language, and how it was either inaccurate or insulting - or often both!   Job titles changed a lot, usually ones with the word 'man' in the title. Mailman = Letter Carrier, for example. This is a necessity from women entering the workforce. Language about race changed from words we (white people) gave other groups to terms they gave themselves.  So Indian became Native American and eventually First Nation in Canada. Eskimo became Inuit. And of course, bigoted slurs are just out entirely, which included 'minor' ones like darkie.   A bunch of other stuff as well. Retarded, despite being a clinical term, is an insult. Handicapped is not. So let's work with handicapped when referring to people. A trick of political correctness is to find easy insults, and replace them with awkward language.   It's not a perfect system, but it has made some huge changes and I'd argue good ones.   Now on to a few things you wrote:  > A good example of when this philosophy of language actually prevails (at least in many familiar circles) is swearing. Swearing in general is considered offensive, rude and aggressive, yet in a close circle of friends, swearing is often quite common and casual.  Let's be clear. Swearing is NOT part of the political correctness bit. Political correctness is really about power. The word fuck is not used by one group to assert dominance over another like the word nigger is. Swearing is fine. Racial slurs have actual real impact on lives.   Now in your example above, and I admire the shit out of Louis CK. He *gets* gender and race politics in a lot of ways. But he's also contradicting himself with Louis CK from a few years later.   His best quote ever is this: \"When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't.\"  So when black people tell me that it's really not cool to say nigger, I fucking don't. When white people tell me it's cool, I don't listen to their opinions because they're not the ones harmed by it. Even the best possible white people like Louis CK.   > In PC language philosophy, the intent behind the word becomes much less relevant, as the zeitgeist has determined that some words are inherently evil until they arbitrarily evolve to be less offensive. So based on this, we make up rules like \"this word belongs to that culture or that group. You're not allowed to say it. It doesn't matter what the context was or if you were just quoting something or if everyone in the room is fine with it, you're just not allowed.   *You're allowed to say whatever the fuck you want.* You're not a victim here under the cruel tyranny of the PC police. Nobody is forcing you  to say or not say anything. There are just consequences for your language. And if you go around calling people retards and niggers, you're an asshole and people may remind you of that. I get that you want to talk about how context is everything, so sure. But the *speaker* is part of that context.  The reason a black person can get away with saying stuff you can't is because of hundreds of years of white dominance over black people. That word is an assertion of power and a racist word is meaningless when people within that racial group use it. I'm pretty damn uncomfortably writing it here, but decided to not go with the n-word stuff because that's awkward as shit.   And it's not like political correctness makes it incapable for us to talk about ideas of race and gender. How could it? We're doing that right now. Political correctness has LOADS of problems, and it is silly how people have to dance around language when talking about that very language. But fuck, I think the trade off is worth it.   Speaking of comedians, here's a good bit on it: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=99s19HBs-6A","human_ref_B":"i think you're confusing rudeness with PC.   Swearing is considered rude or aggressive or symbolizing something specifically \"bad.\" That is on purpose, because we need a means to signify harsh realities, and we need a way to check people who are being rude (ie. parents telling kids not to use the word \"shit\" even though they don't mind their kids saying \"poo\" https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=ZyPSd66HHsc) There is a goal in having this language as part of our dialogue. it's important and necessary, and it's there on purpose.  that is entirely different than the issues around PCness. PCness is totally misunderstood by idiots like Donald Trump (or, generally people who complain about people wanting PC language used). The thing with PC language is that those asking for people to be PC are actually just asking for those non-PC people to be ACCURATE. The problem is that half of society is too stupid to recognize the nuance in the language, and they think that asking for nuance is bad, because they don't know that there's a difference in saying two things. a very good example of this is the controversy now about The Donald going after that judge. He is claiming people are trying to force him to be PC, when in reality people just want him to be accurate and realize that by claiming the judge is against him because he wants to build a wall is racist, not un-PC. Trump doesn't realize there is a difference between being of mexican heritage and being a judge and of hating his stupid views. so he thinks it's fine to call the judge \"a mexican\" and think he will be against him in some stupid unrelated law suit, when really Trump is a racist idiot. you know?  am i making sense here?  EDIT: Clarity","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11084.0,"score_ratio":1.4375}
+{"post_id":"4mx6bc","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: Political correctness is not efficient, productive or healthy In the modern world, we go out of our way to ensure that things like racism, sexism, etc are deterred, and I think that's a positive thing. However, trying to solve the problem with this PC philosophy of language is not helpful and shifts our focus to a much more shallow place.  Let's take a very popular real world example: \"the N word.\" I think Louis C.K. kind of has the right idea here (NSFW). For those of you who don't care to watch it, the basic idea is that saying \"the N word\" is effectively the exact same thing as saying the actual word. Why? Because it should be the intention behind the word, the context of the word that matters, not the word itself. If our intentions are clear, it shouldn't matter the word we use. If the speaker has fulfilled their responsibility of making their intentions clear, then the listener should follow through with their responsibility of interpreting what's said based on those conveyed intentions. A good example of when this philosophy of language actually prevails (at least in many familiar circles) is swearing. Swearing in general is considered offensive, rude and aggressive, yet in a close circle of friends, swearing is often quite common and casual. No one takes offense because they all understand that nobody is actually being hostile. But, when a friend shows genuine signs of anger and starts throwing around curse words in a genuinely aggressive manner, their friends can interpret them different based on the *context.* Not the word itself, but the *context* and the *intentions* that are being conveyed.  In PC language philosophy, the intent behind the word becomes much less relevant, as the zeitgeist has determined that some words are inherently evil until they arbitrarily evolve to be less offensive. So based on this, we make up rules like \"this word belongs to that culture or that group. You're *not allowed* to say it. It doesn't matter what the context was or if you were just quoting something or if everyone in the room is fine with it, you're just not allowed. To me, this doesn't solve any kind of problem. If someone has something genuinely offensive to say, they're going to find a way to say it with or without this arbitrary list of \"evil words,\" and isn't that what matters? Shouldn't the focus be more on evil ideas instead of evil words? I think this is a first step in foregoing intelligent discussion and ultimately solves nothing.","c_root_id_A":"d3z6vrz","c_root_id_B":"d3z1p07","created_at_utc_A":1465284300,"created_at_utc_B":1465272205,"score_A":23,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I don't think you're quite aware of what PC is. Political correctness is a movement that began in the 80s-90s to address some of the problems in our common language, and how it was either inaccurate or insulting - or often both!   Job titles changed a lot, usually ones with the word 'man' in the title. Mailman = Letter Carrier, for example. This is a necessity from women entering the workforce. Language about race changed from words we (white people) gave other groups to terms they gave themselves.  So Indian became Native American and eventually First Nation in Canada. Eskimo became Inuit. And of course, bigoted slurs are just out entirely, which included 'minor' ones like darkie.   A bunch of other stuff as well. Retarded, despite being a clinical term, is an insult. Handicapped is not. So let's work with handicapped when referring to people. A trick of political correctness is to find easy insults, and replace them with awkward language.   It's not a perfect system, but it has made some huge changes and I'd argue good ones.   Now on to a few things you wrote:  > A good example of when this philosophy of language actually prevails (at least in many familiar circles) is swearing. Swearing in general is considered offensive, rude and aggressive, yet in a close circle of friends, swearing is often quite common and casual.  Let's be clear. Swearing is NOT part of the political correctness bit. Political correctness is really about power. The word fuck is not used by one group to assert dominance over another like the word nigger is. Swearing is fine. Racial slurs have actual real impact on lives.   Now in your example above, and I admire the shit out of Louis CK. He *gets* gender and race politics in a lot of ways. But he's also contradicting himself with Louis CK from a few years later.   His best quote ever is this: \"When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't.\"  So when black people tell me that it's really not cool to say nigger, I fucking don't. When white people tell me it's cool, I don't listen to their opinions because they're not the ones harmed by it. Even the best possible white people like Louis CK.   > In PC language philosophy, the intent behind the word becomes much less relevant, as the zeitgeist has determined that some words are inherently evil until they arbitrarily evolve to be less offensive. So based on this, we make up rules like \"this word belongs to that culture or that group. You're not allowed to say it. It doesn't matter what the context was or if you were just quoting something or if everyone in the room is fine with it, you're just not allowed.   *You're allowed to say whatever the fuck you want.* You're not a victim here under the cruel tyranny of the PC police. Nobody is forcing you  to say or not say anything. There are just consequences for your language. And if you go around calling people retards and niggers, you're an asshole and people may remind you of that. I get that you want to talk about how context is everything, so sure. But the *speaker* is part of that context.  The reason a black person can get away with saying stuff you can't is because of hundreds of years of white dominance over black people. That word is an assertion of power and a racist word is meaningless when people within that racial group use it. I'm pretty damn uncomfortably writing it here, but decided to not go with the n-word stuff because that's awkward as shit.   And it's not like political correctness makes it incapable for us to talk about ideas of race and gender. How could it? We're doing that right now. Political correctness has LOADS of problems, and it is silly how people have to dance around language when talking about that very language. But fuck, I think the trade off is worth it.   Speaking of comedians, here's a good bit on it: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=99s19HBs-6A","human_ref_B":"But words do have meaning, take Obamacare A.K.A. the Affordable Care Act for example   http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/charlene-obernauer\/obamacare-vs-affordable-care-act_b_4044579.html  The way politicians refer to it drastically changes how people think about it, if people are so wishy washy that they will change their mind based on what legislation is called why shouldn't politicians try and use this to their advantage?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12095.0,"score_ratio":2.5555555556}
+{"post_id":"4mx6bc","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: Political correctness is not efficient, productive or healthy In the modern world, we go out of our way to ensure that things like racism, sexism, etc are deterred, and I think that's a positive thing. However, trying to solve the problem with this PC philosophy of language is not helpful and shifts our focus to a much more shallow place.  Let's take a very popular real world example: \"the N word.\" I think Louis C.K. kind of has the right idea here (NSFW). For those of you who don't care to watch it, the basic idea is that saying \"the N word\" is effectively the exact same thing as saying the actual word. Why? Because it should be the intention behind the word, the context of the word that matters, not the word itself. If our intentions are clear, it shouldn't matter the word we use. If the speaker has fulfilled their responsibility of making their intentions clear, then the listener should follow through with their responsibility of interpreting what's said based on those conveyed intentions. A good example of when this philosophy of language actually prevails (at least in many familiar circles) is swearing. Swearing in general is considered offensive, rude and aggressive, yet in a close circle of friends, swearing is often quite common and casual. No one takes offense because they all understand that nobody is actually being hostile. But, when a friend shows genuine signs of anger and starts throwing around curse words in a genuinely aggressive manner, their friends can interpret them different based on the *context.* Not the word itself, but the *context* and the *intentions* that are being conveyed.  In PC language philosophy, the intent behind the word becomes much less relevant, as the zeitgeist has determined that some words are inherently evil until they arbitrarily evolve to be less offensive. So based on this, we make up rules like \"this word belongs to that culture or that group. You're *not allowed* to say it. It doesn't matter what the context was or if you were just quoting something or if everyone in the room is fine with it, you're just not allowed. To me, this doesn't solve any kind of problem. If someone has something genuinely offensive to say, they're going to find a way to say it with or without this arbitrary list of \"evil words,\" and isn't that what matters? Shouldn't the focus be more on evil ideas instead of evil words? I think this is a first step in foregoing intelligent discussion and ultimately solves nothing.","c_root_id_A":"d3z2dn7","c_root_id_B":"d3z6vrz","created_at_utc_A":1465273453,"created_at_utc_B":1465284300,"score_A":3,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"I think the concept you're missing here is when words are imposed on one group by another.    Let's look at the word Heeb as an very mild example.  The origin of this word isn't terribly offensive, it just comes from Hebrew.  But it's a word that has only ever been used to hurt Jewish people.  It's not our word for ourselves, it's an insulting corruption that comes out of centuries of hatred and violence.  Which is to say, it's not an \"arbitrary evil word.\"  It's a word that has no purpose but to cause pain.  So, no, non-Jews cannot use this word, regardless of their intentions, because it's not inherently neutral.  Words have *meaning* and *history,* and you can't brush that all away by saying \"no no no I don't mean it offensively.\"  The intent is completely irrelevant because no matter what, it's a slur.  On the other side of the coin, it's a word that Jews may or may not use with each other or rhetorically.  That's not any kind of special privilege; taking slurs back allows minorities and oppressed groups to gain a measure of control back over how their people are talked about.  Still, though, we know it's background and that it's not a word we've given to ourselves, it's a word we were given and had to take.  The only conceivable exception to this concept is in discussions about what words are considered offensive, and why.  Even then, I think it's pretty obviously in bad faith to insist that there's no meaningful difference between using a full word and an abbreviation.  The abbreviation shows that you care and you're not trying to offend anyone--it illustrates the intent that you're arguing for.  Using a full word when it's not your place to do so illustrates the opposite--that you want to shock people and upset them and think you're justified in doing so for whatever reason.","human_ref_B":"I don't think you're quite aware of what PC is. Political correctness is a movement that began in the 80s-90s to address some of the problems in our common language, and how it was either inaccurate or insulting - or often both!   Job titles changed a lot, usually ones with the word 'man' in the title. Mailman = Letter Carrier, for example. This is a necessity from women entering the workforce. Language about race changed from words we (white people) gave other groups to terms they gave themselves.  So Indian became Native American and eventually First Nation in Canada. Eskimo became Inuit. And of course, bigoted slurs are just out entirely, which included 'minor' ones like darkie.   A bunch of other stuff as well. Retarded, despite being a clinical term, is an insult. Handicapped is not. So let's work with handicapped when referring to people. A trick of political correctness is to find easy insults, and replace them with awkward language.   It's not a perfect system, but it has made some huge changes and I'd argue good ones.   Now on to a few things you wrote:  > A good example of when this philosophy of language actually prevails (at least in many familiar circles) is swearing. Swearing in general is considered offensive, rude and aggressive, yet in a close circle of friends, swearing is often quite common and casual.  Let's be clear. Swearing is NOT part of the political correctness bit. Political correctness is really about power. The word fuck is not used by one group to assert dominance over another like the word nigger is. Swearing is fine. Racial slurs have actual real impact on lives.   Now in your example above, and I admire the shit out of Louis CK. He *gets* gender and race politics in a lot of ways. But he's also contradicting himself with Louis CK from a few years later.   His best quote ever is this: \"When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't.\"  So when black people tell me that it's really not cool to say nigger, I fucking don't. When white people tell me it's cool, I don't listen to their opinions because they're not the ones harmed by it. Even the best possible white people like Louis CK.   > In PC language philosophy, the intent behind the word becomes much less relevant, as the zeitgeist has determined that some words are inherently evil until they arbitrarily evolve to be less offensive. So based on this, we make up rules like \"this word belongs to that culture or that group. You're not allowed to say it. It doesn't matter what the context was or if you were just quoting something or if everyone in the room is fine with it, you're just not allowed.   *You're allowed to say whatever the fuck you want.* You're not a victim here under the cruel tyranny of the PC police. Nobody is forcing you  to say or not say anything. There are just consequences for your language. And if you go around calling people retards and niggers, you're an asshole and people may remind you of that. I get that you want to talk about how context is everything, so sure. But the *speaker* is part of that context.  The reason a black person can get away with saying stuff you can't is because of hundreds of years of white dominance over black people. That word is an assertion of power and a racist word is meaningless when people within that racial group use it. I'm pretty damn uncomfortably writing it here, but decided to not go with the n-word stuff because that's awkward as shit.   And it's not like political correctness makes it incapable for us to talk about ideas of race and gender. How could it? We're doing that right now. Political correctness has LOADS of problems, and it is silly how people have to dance around language when talking about that very language. But fuck, I think the trade off is worth it.   Speaking of comedians, here's a good bit on it: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=99s19HBs-6A","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10847.0,"score_ratio":7.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"4mx6bc","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"CMV: Political correctness is not efficient, productive or healthy In the modern world, we go out of our way to ensure that things like racism, sexism, etc are deterred, and I think that's a positive thing. However, trying to solve the problem with this PC philosophy of language is not helpful and shifts our focus to a much more shallow place.  Let's take a very popular real world example: \"the N word.\" I think Louis C.K. kind of has the right idea here (NSFW). For those of you who don't care to watch it, the basic idea is that saying \"the N word\" is effectively the exact same thing as saying the actual word. Why? Because it should be the intention behind the word, the context of the word that matters, not the word itself. If our intentions are clear, it shouldn't matter the word we use. If the speaker has fulfilled their responsibility of making their intentions clear, then the listener should follow through with their responsibility of interpreting what's said based on those conveyed intentions. A good example of when this philosophy of language actually prevails (at least in many familiar circles) is swearing. Swearing in general is considered offensive, rude and aggressive, yet in a close circle of friends, swearing is often quite common and casual. No one takes offense because they all understand that nobody is actually being hostile. But, when a friend shows genuine signs of anger and starts throwing around curse words in a genuinely aggressive manner, their friends can interpret them different based on the *context.* Not the word itself, but the *context* and the *intentions* that are being conveyed.  In PC language philosophy, the intent behind the word becomes much less relevant, as the zeitgeist has determined that some words are inherently evil until they arbitrarily evolve to be less offensive. So based on this, we make up rules like \"this word belongs to that culture or that group. You're *not allowed* to say it. It doesn't matter what the context was or if you were just quoting something or if everyone in the room is fine with it, you're just not allowed. To me, this doesn't solve any kind of problem. If someone has something genuinely offensive to say, they're going to find a way to say it with or without this arbitrary list of \"evil words,\" and isn't that what matters? Shouldn't the focus be more on evil ideas instead of evil words? I think this is a first step in foregoing intelligent discussion and ultimately solves nothing.","c_root_id_A":"d3z1p07","c_root_id_B":"d3z2951","created_at_utc_A":1465272205,"created_at_utc_B":1465273216,"score_A":9,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"But words do have meaning, take Obamacare A.K.A. the Affordable Care Act for example   http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/charlene-obernauer\/obamacare-vs-affordable-care-act_b_4044579.html  The way politicians refer to it drastically changes how people think about it, if people are so wishy washy that they will change their mind based on what legislation is called why shouldn't politicians try and use this to their advantage?","human_ref_B":"i think you're confusing rudeness with PC.   Swearing is considered rude or aggressive or symbolizing something specifically \"bad.\" That is on purpose, because we need a means to signify harsh realities, and we need a way to check people who are being rude (ie. parents telling kids not to use the word \"shit\" even though they don't mind their kids saying \"poo\" https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=ZyPSd66HHsc) There is a goal in having this language as part of our dialogue. it's important and necessary, and it's there on purpose.  that is entirely different than the issues around PCness. PCness is totally misunderstood by idiots like Donald Trump (or, generally people who complain about people wanting PC language used). The thing with PC language is that those asking for people to be PC are actually just asking for those non-PC people to be ACCURATE. The problem is that half of society is too stupid to recognize the nuance in the language, and they think that asking for nuance is bad, because they don't know that there's a difference in saying two things. a very good example of this is the controversy now about The Donald going after that judge. He is claiming people are trying to force him to be PC, when in reality people just want him to be accurate and realize that by claiming the judge is against him because he wants to build a wall is racist, not un-PC. Trump doesn't realize there is a difference between being of mexican heritage and being a judge and of hating his stupid views. so he thinks it's fine to call the judge \"a mexican\" and think he will be against him in some stupid unrelated law suit, when really Trump is a racist idiot. you know?  am i making sense here?  EDIT: Clarity","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1011.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778}
+{"post_id":"6opx9v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: right to work laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract I believe that \"right to work\" laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract. Moreover, absent a prevailing interest that could outweigh the value of these freedoms, I believe that right to work laws should be struck down or repealed.  My basic view is this: when a group of workers collectively bargain with an employer they can request almost anything as a term in their contract. They can ask for dental coverage, different work hours, a dozen roses, etc. Collective bargainers have an interest, in these negotiations, in a contract that bolsters the union and discourages free riders on union benefits. As a consequence, unions often aim to develop contracts that discourage employers from hiring non-union workers or hiring non-union workers that are exempt from union dues.  It seems to me that whether the employer accepts this term is up to the employer and nobody else. If an employer accepts a contract that requires, as a term, that the employer only employ unionized employees, then that's on the employer. Non-unionized employees have no standing right to interfere with the employer's freedom to contract with the union or their freedom to agree to those anti-free-rider terms.   On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  I'll award a Delta who anyone who changes my view on the above, including to folks who illuminate my confusion about why conservatives support right to work laws. I'll aim to respond to comments over the next 24 hours. Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkjag10","c_root_id_B":"dkj9bl9","created_at_utc_A":1500664755,"created_at_utc_B":1500663559,"score_A":96,"score_B":38,"human_ref_A":"There are some major flaws in your reasoning, based on the way laws are written.  First and foremost, the law is written in such a manner that it favors the union  with regards to establishing a union shop.  Per the NLRB procedures, only 30% support is required to call an election, and only a majority vote is required to form the union, meaning that 50%-1 of workers for a company can be forced into union membership against their will (assuming no right-to-work law) or be forced to give up their job.  Secondly, unions are highly politically active groups, and tend to (as leadership and organizations) only be active on one side of the aisle, meaning that people are forced (if they want to work for a certain company) to donate money to organizations that will turn around and use that money to support candidates and causes that they don't support.   Finally, and most importantly, the pushback against unions is primarily a pushback against **public sector unions**, not private sector unions.  Even FDR, who may have done more for the labor movement than any other government official, knew that public sector unions were bad news.  >\"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,\" he wrote. \"It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.\"  >Roosevelt didn\u2019t stop there.  >\"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations,\" he wrote.  >When Walker claimed FDR said \"the government is the people,\" he had Roosevelt\u2019s next line in mind.  >\"The employer,\" Roosevelt\u2019s letter added, \"is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.\"   Roosevelt realized that the standard power dynamic between union and owner didn't apply. Its just not the same.  When the employees at Food Lion strike, you can go to another grocery store. If UAW strikes at Ford, someone is still making Chevys. But if the teachers strike, you can't just drop your kid off at St Catherine's for a couple weeks until it all blows over. If the Department of Sanitation strikes in NYC, there is no other option for dealing with trash.  Additionally, the political support side of it is even further amplified with public sector unions. Without RTW laws, a person cannot be a public servant, cannot teach children or fight fires or collect trash or deliver mail, without being forced to give a portion of their pay to a private organization that will in turn support politicians and policies that they may not agree with.  >On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  They do support freedom to contract.  However, they feel that labor laws, as written, create a power imbalance between employer, worker, and union, and  that the right of the worker to freely associate and freely contract is infringed. They view RTW laws as a re-balancing to protect the individual worker.","human_ref_B":"You *may* have an argument with regards to right of contract (which is not a particularly strong right, in so far as it even *is* a right, which is very debatable), but you have presented no arguments in how RTW infringes on right to peaceably assembly (you are still *allowed* to join a union in RTW states), freedom of speech (you cannot be criminally punished for vocally supporting unions or the repeal of various labor laws), or association (you can still join a union, if you want).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1196.0,"score_ratio":2.5263157895}
+{"post_id":"6opx9v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: right to work laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract I believe that \"right to work\" laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract. Moreover, absent a prevailing interest that could outweigh the value of these freedoms, I believe that right to work laws should be struck down or repealed.  My basic view is this: when a group of workers collectively bargain with an employer they can request almost anything as a term in their contract. They can ask for dental coverage, different work hours, a dozen roses, etc. Collective bargainers have an interest, in these negotiations, in a contract that bolsters the union and discourages free riders on union benefits. As a consequence, unions often aim to develop contracts that discourage employers from hiring non-union workers or hiring non-union workers that are exempt from union dues.  It seems to me that whether the employer accepts this term is up to the employer and nobody else. If an employer accepts a contract that requires, as a term, that the employer only employ unionized employees, then that's on the employer. Non-unionized employees have no standing right to interfere with the employer's freedom to contract with the union or their freedom to agree to those anti-free-rider terms.   On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  I'll award a Delta who anyone who changes my view on the above, including to folks who illuminate my confusion about why conservatives support right to work laws. I'll aim to respond to comments over the next 24 hours. Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkjag10","c_root_id_B":"dkj9xr3","created_at_utc_A":1500664755,"created_at_utc_B":1500664220,"score_A":96,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"There are some major flaws in your reasoning, based on the way laws are written.  First and foremost, the law is written in such a manner that it favors the union  with regards to establishing a union shop.  Per the NLRB procedures, only 30% support is required to call an election, and only a majority vote is required to form the union, meaning that 50%-1 of workers for a company can be forced into union membership against their will (assuming no right-to-work law) or be forced to give up their job.  Secondly, unions are highly politically active groups, and tend to (as leadership and organizations) only be active on one side of the aisle, meaning that people are forced (if they want to work for a certain company) to donate money to organizations that will turn around and use that money to support candidates and causes that they don't support.   Finally, and most importantly, the pushback against unions is primarily a pushback against **public sector unions**, not private sector unions.  Even FDR, who may have done more for the labor movement than any other government official, knew that public sector unions were bad news.  >\"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,\" he wrote. \"It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.\"  >Roosevelt didn\u2019t stop there.  >\"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations,\" he wrote.  >When Walker claimed FDR said \"the government is the people,\" he had Roosevelt\u2019s next line in mind.  >\"The employer,\" Roosevelt\u2019s letter added, \"is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.\"   Roosevelt realized that the standard power dynamic between union and owner didn't apply. Its just not the same.  When the employees at Food Lion strike, you can go to another grocery store. If UAW strikes at Ford, someone is still making Chevys. But if the teachers strike, you can't just drop your kid off at St Catherine's for a couple weeks until it all blows over. If the Department of Sanitation strikes in NYC, there is no other option for dealing with trash.  Additionally, the political support side of it is even further amplified with public sector unions. Without RTW laws, a person cannot be a public servant, cannot teach children or fight fires or collect trash or deliver mail, without being forced to give a portion of their pay to a private organization that will in turn support politicians and policies that they may not agree with.  >On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  They do support freedom to contract.  However, they feel that labor laws, as written, create a power imbalance between employer, worker, and union, and  that the right of the worker to freely associate and freely contract is infringed. They view RTW laws as a re-balancing to protect the individual worker.","human_ref_B":"Right to works does not prohibit unions.  Employees can still unionize and collectively bargain - so their rights to assembly, speech, association, and contract are preserved.  What they cannot do is compel prospective employees to join a union as a conditions of employment.  Clearly forcing a person to join a union - violates THAT person's freedom of assembly, speech, association, and contract.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":535.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"6opx9v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: right to work laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract I believe that \"right to work\" laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract. Moreover, absent a prevailing interest that could outweigh the value of these freedoms, I believe that right to work laws should be struck down or repealed.  My basic view is this: when a group of workers collectively bargain with an employer they can request almost anything as a term in their contract. They can ask for dental coverage, different work hours, a dozen roses, etc. Collective bargainers have an interest, in these negotiations, in a contract that bolsters the union and discourages free riders on union benefits. As a consequence, unions often aim to develop contracts that discourage employers from hiring non-union workers or hiring non-union workers that are exempt from union dues.  It seems to me that whether the employer accepts this term is up to the employer and nobody else. If an employer accepts a contract that requires, as a term, that the employer only employ unionized employees, then that's on the employer. Non-unionized employees have no standing right to interfere with the employer's freedom to contract with the union or their freedom to agree to those anti-free-rider terms.   On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  I'll award a Delta who anyone who changes my view on the above, including to folks who illuminate my confusion about why conservatives support right to work laws. I'll aim to respond to comments over the next 24 hours. Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkj9k0f","c_root_id_B":"dkjag10","created_at_utc_A":1500663808,"created_at_utc_B":1500664755,"score_A":7,"score_B":96,"human_ref_A":"As a self-proclaimed libertarian I like the right to work laws because they focus on an individual human's rights. I personally but the value of free speech and such of a human above that of a business or an organization. Sometimes the pursuit of the ideal is less important than the practical affect of limiting some rights so that other more important ones can thrive.  Additionally there are many things that you aren't allowed to put in a contract in many different situations, or at least they won't be upheld in court. Working in insurance any time we want to change a price we have to file it with the state and they have to approve it. If I want to sell insurance for $10,000 a someone wants to pay for it should I be able to still do that? We have many consumer protections like this today. Similarly we have minimum wage laws, if I want to work for $4 an hour why can't I? How about mandatory health insurance, or OCEA policies, or FMLA etc?   All of those worker\/consumer\/business protections are similar to right to work laws. If you have an issue with all those, I can see your argument but if you don't think those violate are the freedom of assembly, speech, association and contract then I think you should reassess your position.","human_ref_B":"There are some major flaws in your reasoning, based on the way laws are written.  First and foremost, the law is written in such a manner that it favors the union  with regards to establishing a union shop.  Per the NLRB procedures, only 30% support is required to call an election, and only a majority vote is required to form the union, meaning that 50%-1 of workers for a company can be forced into union membership against their will (assuming no right-to-work law) or be forced to give up their job.  Secondly, unions are highly politically active groups, and tend to (as leadership and organizations) only be active on one side of the aisle, meaning that people are forced (if they want to work for a certain company) to donate money to organizations that will turn around and use that money to support candidates and causes that they don't support.   Finally, and most importantly, the pushback against unions is primarily a pushback against **public sector unions**, not private sector unions.  Even FDR, who may have done more for the labor movement than any other government official, knew that public sector unions were bad news.  >\"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,\" he wrote. \"It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.\"  >Roosevelt didn\u2019t stop there.  >\"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations,\" he wrote.  >When Walker claimed FDR said \"the government is the people,\" he had Roosevelt\u2019s next line in mind.  >\"The employer,\" Roosevelt\u2019s letter added, \"is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.\"   Roosevelt realized that the standard power dynamic between union and owner didn't apply. Its just not the same.  When the employees at Food Lion strike, you can go to another grocery store. If UAW strikes at Ford, someone is still making Chevys. But if the teachers strike, you can't just drop your kid off at St Catherine's for a couple weeks until it all blows over. If the Department of Sanitation strikes in NYC, there is no other option for dealing with trash.  Additionally, the political support side of it is even further amplified with public sector unions. Without RTW laws, a person cannot be a public servant, cannot teach children or fight fires or collect trash or deliver mail, without being forced to give a portion of their pay to a private organization that will in turn support politicians and policies that they may not agree with.  >On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  They do support freedom to contract.  However, they feel that labor laws, as written, create a power imbalance between employer, worker, and union, and  that the right of the worker to freely associate and freely contract is infringed. They view RTW laws as a re-balancing to protect the individual worker.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":947.0,"score_ratio":13.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"6opx9v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: right to work laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract I believe that \"right to work\" laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract. Moreover, absent a prevailing interest that could outweigh the value of these freedoms, I believe that right to work laws should be struck down or repealed.  My basic view is this: when a group of workers collectively bargain with an employer they can request almost anything as a term in their contract. They can ask for dental coverage, different work hours, a dozen roses, etc. Collective bargainers have an interest, in these negotiations, in a contract that bolsters the union and discourages free riders on union benefits. As a consequence, unions often aim to develop contracts that discourage employers from hiring non-union workers or hiring non-union workers that are exempt from union dues.  It seems to me that whether the employer accepts this term is up to the employer and nobody else. If an employer accepts a contract that requires, as a term, that the employer only employ unionized employees, then that's on the employer. Non-unionized employees have no standing right to interfere with the employer's freedom to contract with the union or their freedom to agree to those anti-free-rider terms.   On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  I'll award a Delta who anyone who changes my view on the above, including to folks who illuminate my confusion about why conservatives support right to work laws. I'll aim to respond to comments over the next 24 hours. Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkjag10","c_root_id_B":"dkj9xm4","created_at_utc_A":1500664755,"created_at_utc_B":1500664215,"score_A":96,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There are some major flaws in your reasoning, based on the way laws are written.  First and foremost, the law is written in such a manner that it favors the union  with regards to establishing a union shop.  Per the NLRB procedures, only 30% support is required to call an election, and only a majority vote is required to form the union, meaning that 50%-1 of workers for a company can be forced into union membership against their will (assuming no right-to-work law) or be forced to give up their job.  Secondly, unions are highly politically active groups, and tend to (as leadership and organizations) only be active on one side of the aisle, meaning that people are forced (if they want to work for a certain company) to donate money to organizations that will turn around and use that money to support candidates and causes that they don't support.   Finally, and most importantly, the pushback against unions is primarily a pushback against **public sector unions**, not private sector unions.  Even FDR, who may have done more for the labor movement than any other government official, knew that public sector unions were bad news.  >\"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,\" he wrote. \"It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.\"  >Roosevelt didn\u2019t stop there.  >\"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations,\" he wrote.  >When Walker claimed FDR said \"the government is the people,\" he had Roosevelt\u2019s next line in mind.  >\"The employer,\" Roosevelt\u2019s letter added, \"is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.\"   Roosevelt realized that the standard power dynamic between union and owner didn't apply. Its just not the same.  When the employees at Food Lion strike, you can go to another grocery store. If UAW strikes at Ford, someone is still making Chevys. But if the teachers strike, you can't just drop your kid off at St Catherine's for a couple weeks until it all blows over. If the Department of Sanitation strikes in NYC, there is no other option for dealing with trash.  Additionally, the political support side of it is even further amplified with public sector unions. Without RTW laws, a person cannot be a public servant, cannot teach children or fight fires or collect trash or deliver mail, without being forced to give a portion of their pay to a private organization that will in turn support politicians and policies that they may not agree with.  >On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  They do support freedom to contract.  However, they feel that labor laws, as written, create a power imbalance between employer, worker, and union, and  that the right of the worker to freely associate and freely contract is infringed. They view RTW laws as a re-balancing to protect the individual worker.","human_ref_B":">It seems to me that whether the employer accepts this term is up to the employer and nobody else. If an employer accepts a contract that requires, as a term, that the employer only employ unionized employees, then that's on the employer.   We have all sorts of laws that put constraints on the kinds of contracts that you're allowed to enter into. Maybe hardcore libertarians don't agree with that principle, but right to work laws are far from the only examples where laws affect in what terms you can enter into for a contract. Would you support a hypothetical union setting as part of the contract terms that the company only white people as workers?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":540.0,"score_ratio":16.0}
+{"post_id":"6opx9v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: right to work laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract I believe that \"right to work\" laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract. Moreover, absent a prevailing interest that could outweigh the value of these freedoms, I believe that right to work laws should be struck down or repealed.  My basic view is this: when a group of workers collectively bargain with an employer they can request almost anything as a term in their contract. They can ask for dental coverage, different work hours, a dozen roses, etc. Collective bargainers have an interest, in these negotiations, in a contract that bolsters the union and discourages free riders on union benefits. As a consequence, unions often aim to develop contracts that discourage employers from hiring non-union workers or hiring non-union workers that are exempt from union dues.  It seems to me that whether the employer accepts this term is up to the employer and nobody else. If an employer accepts a contract that requires, as a term, that the employer only employ unionized employees, then that's on the employer. Non-unionized employees have no standing right to interfere with the employer's freedom to contract with the union or their freedom to agree to those anti-free-rider terms.   On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  I'll award a Delta who anyone who changes my view on the above, including to folks who illuminate my confusion about why conservatives support right to work laws. I'll aim to respond to comments over the next 24 hours. Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkj9k0f","c_root_id_B":"dkj9xr3","created_at_utc_A":1500663808,"created_at_utc_B":1500664220,"score_A":7,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"As a self-proclaimed libertarian I like the right to work laws because they focus on an individual human's rights. I personally but the value of free speech and such of a human above that of a business or an organization. Sometimes the pursuit of the ideal is less important than the practical affect of limiting some rights so that other more important ones can thrive.  Additionally there are many things that you aren't allowed to put in a contract in many different situations, or at least they won't be upheld in court. Working in insurance any time we want to change a price we have to file it with the state and they have to approve it. If I want to sell insurance for $10,000 a someone wants to pay for it should I be able to still do that? We have many consumer protections like this today. Similarly we have minimum wage laws, if I want to work for $4 an hour why can't I? How about mandatory health insurance, or OCEA policies, or FMLA etc?   All of those worker\/consumer\/business protections are similar to right to work laws. If you have an issue with all those, I can see your argument but if you don't think those violate are the freedom of assembly, speech, association and contract then I think you should reassess your position.","human_ref_B":"Right to works does not prohibit unions.  Employees can still unionize and collectively bargain - so their rights to assembly, speech, association, and contract are preserved.  What they cannot do is compel prospective employees to join a union as a conditions of employment.  Clearly forcing a person to join a union - violates THAT person's freedom of assembly, speech, association, and contract.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":412.0,"score_ratio":2.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"6opx9v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: right to work laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract I believe that \"right to work\" laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract. Moreover, absent a prevailing interest that could outweigh the value of these freedoms, I believe that right to work laws should be struck down or repealed.  My basic view is this: when a group of workers collectively bargain with an employer they can request almost anything as a term in their contract. They can ask for dental coverage, different work hours, a dozen roses, etc. Collective bargainers have an interest, in these negotiations, in a contract that bolsters the union and discourages free riders on union benefits. As a consequence, unions often aim to develop contracts that discourage employers from hiring non-union workers or hiring non-union workers that are exempt from union dues.  It seems to me that whether the employer accepts this term is up to the employer and nobody else. If an employer accepts a contract that requires, as a term, that the employer only employ unionized employees, then that's on the employer. Non-unionized employees have no standing right to interfere with the employer's freedom to contract with the union or their freedom to agree to those anti-free-rider terms.   On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  I'll award a Delta who anyone who changes my view on the above, including to folks who illuminate my confusion about why conservatives support right to work laws. I'll aim to respond to comments over the next 24 hours. Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkj9xm4","c_root_id_B":"dkj9xr3","created_at_utc_A":1500664215,"created_at_utc_B":1500664220,"score_A":6,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":">It seems to me that whether the employer accepts this term is up to the employer and nobody else. If an employer accepts a contract that requires, as a term, that the employer only employ unionized employees, then that's on the employer.   We have all sorts of laws that put constraints on the kinds of contracts that you're allowed to enter into. Maybe hardcore libertarians don't agree with that principle, but right to work laws are far from the only examples where laws affect in what terms you can enter into for a contract. Would you support a hypothetical union setting as part of the contract terms that the company only white people as workers?","human_ref_B":"Right to works does not prohibit unions.  Employees can still unionize and collectively bargain - so their rights to assembly, speech, association, and contract are preserved.  What they cannot do is compel prospective employees to join a union as a conditions of employment.  Clearly forcing a person to join a union - violates THAT person's freedom of assembly, speech, association, and contract.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"6opx9v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: right to work laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract I believe that \"right to work\" laws violate the freedoms of assembly, speech, association, and contract. Moreover, absent a prevailing interest that could outweigh the value of these freedoms, I believe that right to work laws should be struck down or repealed.  My basic view is this: when a group of workers collectively bargain with an employer they can request almost anything as a term in their contract. They can ask for dental coverage, different work hours, a dozen roses, etc. Collective bargainers have an interest, in these negotiations, in a contract that bolsters the union and discourages free riders on union benefits. As a consequence, unions often aim to develop contracts that discourage employers from hiring non-union workers or hiring non-union workers that are exempt from union dues.  It seems to me that whether the employer accepts this term is up to the employer and nobody else. If an employer accepts a contract that requires, as a term, that the employer only employ unionized employees, then that's on the employer. Non-unionized employees have no standing right to interfere with the employer's freedom to contract with the union or their freedom to agree to those anti-free-rider terms.   On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  I'll award a Delta who anyone who changes my view on the above, including to folks who illuminate my confusion about why conservatives support right to work laws. I'll aim to respond to comments over the next 24 hours. Thanks!  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkjytq9","c_root_id_B":"dkjsnz2","created_at_utc_A":1500695707,"created_at_utc_B":1500686714,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If unions were still based on the freedom of association I'd agree with you, but they're not.   Originally forming a union was a risky proposition. You'd have to covertly organize a group of people who would be willing to strike that was large enough to fundamentally disrupt a business. Then the employer would have the choice of firing everyone who attempted to unionize, weighing the disruption to business against the demands of the union.   Today, you can't be fired for trying to unionize. That in itself is a violation of the employer's freedom of association, as they're not allowed to disassociate themselves from people they don't want to do business with. We can argue over whether that's good or bad, but I haven't heard anyone try to argue that it's not a limitation on the employers freedom of association.   If a union formed with the risk of everyone being fired and negotiated with the employer on the basis that they were all willing to strike and cause business disruptions, then I'd agree that laws prohibiting contract clauses requiring everyone to be union members would be a violation of freedom of association.   But when a union is formed from an almost risk free, simple majority vote that forces the employer to negotiate with the union, the union isn't based on freedom of association, they're just based on the rules set out in the NLRA.","human_ref_B":"> On a side note, I'm genuinely puzzled why so many conservatives and libertarians support right to work laws despite those laws' undermining the freedom to contract. It's my impression that conservatives and libertarians tend to support the freedom to contract.  In a vacuum, we wouldn't support them. In the real world, though, unions have become powerful due in significant part due to special legal protections.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_States_labor_law#Collective_bargaining  > In Adair v United States,[202] and Coppage v Kansas,[203] the US Supreme Court, over powerful dissents,[204] asserted the Constitution empowered employers to require employees to sign contracts promising they would not join a union. These \"yellow dog contracts\" were offered to employees on a \"take it or leave it\" basis, and effectively stopped unionization. They lasted until the Great Depression when the Norris\u2013La Guardia Act of 1932 banned them.  Unions were effectively stopped until employers were legally barred from their \"right to contract.\"  > the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was drafted to create positive rights for collective bargaining in most of the private sector.[207] It aimed to create a unified federal system so that, under \u00a7157, employees would gain the legal \"right to self-organization\", \"to bargain collectively\" and use \"concerted activities\" including strikes for \"mutual aid or other protection\".  Yet again special rights and protections being granted to benefit unionization.  Ask a conservative or libertarian if they'll be happy to go back to normal consenting adults agreeing to mutually beneficial contracts and they'll be all for it. In the meantime, ensuring unions aren't able to leverage their existing legal protections to also mandate even people who don't want to participate paying up isn't unreasonable.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8993.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"1l5skj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"I don't think there should be \"attorney privelege\" and that attorneys should be able to tell the court if their client admits to a charge. CMV I'm posting in CMV because I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area at all, but I hold this controversial view. I am open to learning about why this privelege exists.  While I understand that a defense attorney is there to defend you, I don't see how making it illegal for defense attorneys to say when their client admits to a charge is helping anyone. People will explain this by saying, \"hopefully the courts figure out that he did it anyway, just have trust in the system\". But the system isn't foolproof, and I don't know how defense attorneys can live with themselves knowing that they are defending someone who should be charged with the crime! I don't understand the system at all. Attorneys shouldn't be forced to keep these awful secrets, and we all want the bad guys to get their proper verdict, so why have this rule?  All this rule helps are the bad guys. The good guys aren't benefiting from this, because they (usually) wouldn't admit to something to begin with. This rule is only in place for the sake of \"the system\" and I don't know how good that system is. To know that there could be murders set free that would be in prison now if this rule wasn't in place is unsettling to say the least.","c_root_id_A":"cbw5e2q","c_root_id_B":"cbw2q93","created_at_utc_A":1377587512,"created_at_utc_B":1377576366,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Even if the defendant is guilty, the defense attorney still has a duty to defend him:  not for its own sake, but to keep the state's prosecution honest. Defense attorneys aren't protecting the guilty as much as they are protecting the Constitution and our judicial process.  People need to be proven guilty based on the evidence.  Prosecutors need to know that solid, factual evidence is the only reliable path to a conviction.  The alternative is a government that can charge people at random and see what sticks.    Imagine someone is brought to trial only on the strength of falsely planted evidence, then convicted because of statements made in confidence to an attorney.   The state did not do its job.  In fact, the state learns that planting evidence helps put the bad guys away-- even though there was originally no evidence that the suspect committed a crime.  Maybe next week they plant the evidence in *your* car, and for whatever reason your attorney can't demonstrate reasonable doubt, and now you're going to prison for a crime you didn't commit.  Keep in mind that a mere arrest can ruin a person's life:  if you can't afford bail, you might sit in jail for *months* awaiting trial, losing your job and house in the process.  As a sidenote, you're not only advocating the removal of attorney-client privilege, but several Constitutional principles including the right to avoid self-incrimination (5th amendment) and the right of the accused (including the guilty) to a competent defense.  Also, the defendants comments would probably be inadmissible as hearsay even if attorney-client wasn't an issue.","human_ref_B":"What about if a person doesn't know if she's innocent or guilty? Say for example someone commits homicide but doesn't know if her particular homicide is considered a crime in her jurisdiction. She needs an attorney that will not disclose so she can learn whether she committed a crime in the first place. This is separate from the prosecutor's claim of criminal activity.  And the other issue is that when it comes to courts, people typically only want to reveal the personal\/private information that is absolutely necessary for defense. Say for example the circumstances of the homicide involve a trade secret that, if made public, will financially ruin the defendant (even if the defendant is eventually found not guilty).  If you made it so that the attorney must reveal what happened, then why would any client risk their financial\/personal\/social status?  Also, the other issue is that it is NOT the attorney's job to determine whether someone is guilty. That is the judge's and\/or jury's job. What you're asking is that attorney's decide whether or not someone is guilty of a crime... if so then why even have judges and\/or juries in the first place?  Another issue is that when you give people a chance to reach an attorney, that makes them more likely to stay within the system of government. If criminals feel that they have a chance of getting away free, they're more likely to turn themselves in than to hide out or continue to commit more crimes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11146.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"1l5skj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"I don't think there should be \"attorney privelege\" and that attorneys should be able to tell the court if their client admits to a charge. CMV I'm posting in CMV because I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area at all, but I hold this controversial view. I am open to learning about why this privelege exists.  While I understand that a defense attorney is there to defend you, I don't see how making it illegal for defense attorneys to say when their client admits to a charge is helping anyone. People will explain this by saying, \"hopefully the courts figure out that he did it anyway, just have trust in the system\". But the system isn't foolproof, and I don't know how defense attorneys can live with themselves knowing that they are defending someone who should be charged with the crime! I don't understand the system at all. Attorneys shouldn't be forced to keep these awful secrets, and we all want the bad guys to get their proper verdict, so why have this rule?  All this rule helps are the bad guys. The good guys aren't benefiting from this, because they (usually) wouldn't admit to something to begin with. This rule is only in place for the sake of \"the system\" and I don't know how good that system is. To know that there could be murders set free that would be in prison now if this rule wasn't in place is unsettling to say the least.","c_root_id_A":"cbw2sa7","c_root_id_B":"cbw5e2q","created_at_utc_A":1377576540,"created_at_utc_B":1377587512,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Lets just pretend that there was a murder. With attorney client privelege in place, the murderer safely goes to his attorney and confesses. The attorney, knowing this guy is screwed, talks to the police and negotiates leniency if the guy turns himself in and confesses. The guy does so and he goes to jail.  Now we get rid of attorney client privledge The murderer doesn't talk to anyone and the police have to track him down and hope it doesn't result in a bloody shootout.  >Less than 5 percent of criminal cases go to trial; most result in plea bargains.  http:\/\/www.northwestern.edu\/newscenter\/stories\/2009\/03\/burnstrial.html#sthash.AuLTgZ3L.dpuf  I don't believe that there would be many plea bargains if criminals couldn't feel safe confiding in their attorneys","human_ref_B":"Even if the defendant is guilty, the defense attorney still has a duty to defend him:  not for its own sake, but to keep the state's prosecution honest. Defense attorneys aren't protecting the guilty as much as they are protecting the Constitution and our judicial process.  People need to be proven guilty based on the evidence.  Prosecutors need to know that solid, factual evidence is the only reliable path to a conviction.  The alternative is a government that can charge people at random and see what sticks.    Imagine someone is brought to trial only on the strength of falsely planted evidence, then convicted because of statements made in confidence to an attorney.   The state did not do its job.  In fact, the state learns that planting evidence helps put the bad guys away-- even though there was originally no evidence that the suspect committed a crime.  Maybe next week they plant the evidence in *your* car, and for whatever reason your attorney can't demonstrate reasonable doubt, and now you're going to prison for a crime you didn't commit.  Keep in mind that a mere arrest can ruin a person's life:  if you can't afford bail, you might sit in jail for *months* awaiting trial, losing your job and house in the process.  As a sidenote, you're not only advocating the removal of attorney-client privilege, but several Constitutional principles including the right to avoid self-incrimination (5th amendment) and the right of the accused (including the guilty) to a competent defense.  Also, the defendants comments would probably be inadmissible as hearsay even if attorney-client wasn't an issue.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10972.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"1l5skj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"I don't think there should be \"attorney privelege\" and that attorneys should be able to tell the court if their client admits to a charge. CMV I'm posting in CMV because I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area at all, but I hold this controversial view. I am open to learning about why this privelege exists.  While I understand that a defense attorney is there to defend you, I don't see how making it illegal for defense attorneys to say when their client admits to a charge is helping anyone. People will explain this by saying, \"hopefully the courts figure out that he did it anyway, just have trust in the system\". But the system isn't foolproof, and I don't know how defense attorneys can live with themselves knowing that they are defending someone who should be charged with the crime! I don't understand the system at all. Attorneys shouldn't be forced to keep these awful secrets, and we all want the bad guys to get their proper verdict, so why have this rule?  All this rule helps are the bad guys. The good guys aren't benefiting from this, because they (usually) wouldn't admit to something to begin with. This rule is only in place for the sake of \"the system\" and I don't know how good that system is. To know that there could be murders set free that would be in prison now if this rule wasn't in place is unsettling to say the least.","c_root_id_A":"cbw5e2q","c_root_id_B":"cbw513z","created_at_utc_A":1377587512,"created_at_utc_B":1377585453,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Even if the defendant is guilty, the defense attorney still has a duty to defend him:  not for its own sake, but to keep the state's prosecution honest. Defense attorneys aren't protecting the guilty as much as they are protecting the Constitution and our judicial process.  People need to be proven guilty based on the evidence.  Prosecutors need to know that solid, factual evidence is the only reliable path to a conviction.  The alternative is a government that can charge people at random and see what sticks.    Imagine someone is brought to trial only on the strength of falsely planted evidence, then convicted because of statements made in confidence to an attorney.   The state did not do its job.  In fact, the state learns that planting evidence helps put the bad guys away-- even though there was originally no evidence that the suspect committed a crime.  Maybe next week they plant the evidence in *your* car, and for whatever reason your attorney can't demonstrate reasonable doubt, and now you're going to prison for a crime you didn't commit.  Keep in mind that a mere arrest can ruin a person's life:  if you can't afford bail, you might sit in jail for *months* awaiting trial, losing your job and house in the process.  As a sidenote, you're not only advocating the removal of attorney-client privilege, but several Constitutional principles including the right to avoid self-incrimination (5th amendment) and the right of the accused (including the guilty) to a competent defense.  Also, the defendants comments would probably be inadmissible as hearsay even if attorney-client wasn't an issue.","human_ref_B":"Oh this is *easy* - unscrupulous defense attorneys will just start lying.  Day 1 of \"defense attorneys can implicate their own clients,\" you know what will happen?  A prosecutor will start bribing public defenders in their district to claim that their clients privately admitted to wrongdoing.  The prosecutor gets a boost to his\/her conviction rate, the public defenders get financial compensation, and innocent people get screwed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2059.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"dz0ok6","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV - In the USA (and spreading) 'Blackness' has become extremely prescriptive and performative leading to exclusionary and divisive attitudes and sentiments This is based around a lot of what I see coming from the US during social or political discussions. I first noticed it when the whole 'Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don't read' and him being 'dis-invited from the cookout' thingy was going on.  There often seems to be a dialogues based around whether people are 'black enough'. Basically meaning do they confirm to the right stereotypes with regards to who to vote for, what to eat or listen to and other arbitrary things like that. As a black man with less 'conventional' interests (although I'm UK based), especially as a younger man I've often found myself being called a 'Bounty' or an 'Oreo' etc exclusively by other black people for things as innocuous as listening to Pink Floyd and 'talking white'. This experience is echoed by people fro Tyler, The Creator to Childish Gambino - black guys that grew up with less conventional or stereotypical interests, and they often reflect this in their lyrics.  I feel like this is leading to internal segregation within the black community (characterised even - albeit differently here - with the 'Team lightskin v Team darkskin phase a little while back) as well as silly situations where the likes of Rachel Dolezal can eat the right food, drink the proverbial kool-aid and vote the right way and that guves her confidence to claim she's 'culturally black'. Far too much of black 'Identity' it seems just boils down to embracing stereotypes about our music, food, dialect or politica affiliation.  In my experience the people calling me an Oreo or a Bounty for liking Metal music (white people music) or 'Talking White' (not utilising much slang, speaking in a more refined way) are overwhelmingly if not exclusively other black people. Calling me out for being 'not black enough' or the 'wrong kind of black guy'. This expands to dating - in my experience black girls tend to stay away from 'Oreos' and I've had comments in the past that their brothers\/friends\/families wouldn't approve because of how I speak or dress (although I get the dirtiest looks from black girls if I'm ever with a white girl so I don't get that) and this experience is definitely not a rarity for people whose interests or experiences fall out of 'traditional' blackness which at this point has basically become synonymous with 'African American culture'.","c_root_id_A":"f84jwq5","c_root_id_B":"f84kr0t","created_at_utc_A":1574251848,"created_at_utc_B":1574252767,"score_A":29,"score_B":147,"human_ref_A":"In so far as Black Americans are a cultural group, it makes sense that they would have some shared cultural touchstones, though, no? I think how they enforce those, is a different question, and agree that it\u2019s dumb to overenforce group attributes, since basically many boil down to stereotypes, and no one completely fits with them all. So it doesn\u2019t seem odd or wrong that there would be level of prescripted preferences, attitudes, traits, etc... And Rachel Dolezal I think disproves your point, because she was universally lambasted for not being actually black, despite all the cultural stuff.","human_ref_B":"So are you saying that gate keeping in the the black community in particular is bad? That gate keeping in regards to identity is bad? That you don\u2019t like being insulted by people within the black community in particular?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":919.0,"score_ratio":5.0689655172}
+{"post_id":"dz0ok6","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV - In the USA (and spreading) 'Blackness' has become extremely prescriptive and performative leading to exclusionary and divisive attitudes and sentiments This is based around a lot of what I see coming from the US during social or political discussions. I first noticed it when the whole 'Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don't read' and him being 'dis-invited from the cookout' thingy was going on.  There often seems to be a dialogues based around whether people are 'black enough'. Basically meaning do they confirm to the right stereotypes with regards to who to vote for, what to eat or listen to and other arbitrary things like that. As a black man with less 'conventional' interests (although I'm UK based), especially as a younger man I've often found myself being called a 'Bounty' or an 'Oreo' etc exclusively by other black people for things as innocuous as listening to Pink Floyd and 'talking white'. This experience is echoed by people fro Tyler, The Creator to Childish Gambino - black guys that grew up with less conventional or stereotypical interests, and they often reflect this in their lyrics.  I feel like this is leading to internal segregation within the black community (characterised even - albeit differently here - with the 'Team lightskin v Team darkskin phase a little while back) as well as silly situations where the likes of Rachel Dolezal can eat the right food, drink the proverbial kool-aid and vote the right way and that guves her confidence to claim she's 'culturally black'. Far too much of black 'Identity' it seems just boils down to embracing stereotypes about our music, food, dialect or politica affiliation.  In my experience the people calling me an Oreo or a Bounty for liking Metal music (white people music) or 'Talking White' (not utilising much slang, speaking in a more refined way) are overwhelmingly if not exclusively other black people. Calling me out for being 'not black enough' or the 'wrong kind of black guy'. This expands to dating - in my experience black girls tend to stay away from 'Oreos' and I've had comments in the past that their brothers\/friends\/families wouldn't approve because of how I speak or dress (although I get the dirtiest looks from black girls if I'm ever with a white girl so I don't get that) and this experience is definitely not a rarity for people whose interests or experiences fall out of 'traditional' blackness which at this point has basically become synonymous with 'African American culture'.","c_root_id_A":"f84jwq5","c_root_id_B":"f84l6s6","created_at_utc_A":1574251848,"created_at_utc_B":1574253235,"score_A":29,"score_B":66,"human_ref_A":"In so far as Black Americans are a cultural group, it makes sense that they would have some shared cultural touchstones, though, no? I think how they enforce those, is a different question, and agree that it\u2019s dumb to overenforce group attributes, since basically many boil down to stereotypes, and no one completely fits with them all. So it doesn\u2019t seem odd or wrong that there would be level of prescripted preferences, attitudes, traits, etc... And Rachel Dolezal I think disproves your point, because she was universally lambasted for not being actually black, despite all the cultural stuff.","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t think I disagree with anything in the main body of your post, but I was struck by the title. By saying \u201cblackness has become extremely prescriptive and performative\u201d, what are you considering \u201cBlackness\u201d? If I were to identify a part of African American culture that is not prescriptive and performative, would that be a counterpoint, or would that not be what you mean by \u201cblackness\u201d?  If the latter, then you\u2019ll have kinda defined \u201cblackness\u201d to fit with your description, making the argument somewhat circular.  If the former, then I would argue there are still aspects of \u201cblackness\u201d that revolves around solidarity in the face of poverty and systemic injustice, which is not at all prescriptive\/performative, at least not towards each other. You mentioned Childish Gambino \u2014 would you agree that the underlying statements in This Is America are a good example of \u201cblackness\u201d, done in a very positive and uniting way?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1387.0,"score_ratio":2.275862069}
+{"post_id":"dz0ok6","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV - In the USA (and spreading) 'Blackness' has become extremely prescriptive and performative leading to exclusionary and divisive attitudes and sentiments This is based around a lot of what I see coming from the US during social or political discussions. I first noticed it when the whole 'Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don't read' and him being 'dis-invited from the cookout' thingy was going on.  There often seems to be a dialogues based around whether people are 'black enough'. Basically meaning do they confirm to the right stereotypes with regards to who to vote for, what to eat or listen to and other arbitrary things like that. As a black man with less 'conventional' interests (although I'm UK based), especially as a younger man I've often found myself being called a 'Bounty' or an 'Oreo' etc exclusively by other black people for things as innocuous as listening to Pink Floyd and 'talking white'. This experience is echoed by people fro Tyler, The Creator to Childish Gambino - black guys that grew up with less conventional or stereotypical interests, and they often reflect this in their lyrics.  I feel like this is leading to internal segregation within the black community (characterised even - albeit differently here - with the 'Team lightskin v Team darkskin phase a little while back) as well as silly situations where the likes of Rachel Dolezal can eat the right food, drink the proverbial kool-aid and vote the right way and that guves her confidence to claim she's 'culturally black'. Far too much of black 'Identity' it seems just boils down to embracing stereotypes about our music, food, dialect or politica affiliation.  In my experience the people calling me an Oreo or a Bounty for liking Metal music (white people music) or 'Talking White' (not utilising much slang, speaking in a more refined way) are overwhelmingly if not exclusively other black people. Calling me out for being 'not black enough' or the 'wrong kind of black guy'. This expands to dating - in my experience black girls tend to stay away from 'Oreos' and I've had comments in the past that their brothers\/friends\/families wouldn't approve because of how I speak or dress (although I get the dirtiest looks from black girls if I'm ever with a white girl so I don't get that) and this experience is definitely not a rarity for people whose interests or experiences fall out of 'traditional' blackness which at this point has basically become synonymous with 'African American culture'.","c_root_id_A":"f84jwq5","c_root_id_B":"f84uw8x","created_at_utc_A":1574251848,"created_at_utc_B":1574261290,"score_A":29,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"In so far as Black Americans are a cultural group, it makes sense that they would have some shared cultural touchstones, though, no? I think how they enforce those, is a different question, and agree that it\u2019s dumb to overenforce group attributes, since basically many boil down to stereotypes, and no one completely fits with them all. So it doesn\u2019t seem odd or wrong that there would be level of prescripted preferences, attitudes, traits, etc... And Rachel Dolezal I think disproves your point, because she was universally lambasted for not being actually black, despite all the cultural stuff.","human_ref_B":"I agree with you that criticizing people for not being \"black enough\" is a significant issue, however, it is not new.  This issue goes all the way back to slavery when slave masters fathered half black children. These children sometimes have lighter skin and would often work inside the plantation mansion, dubbed \"the big house,\" when they became adults. They were disparaged by the field slaves as the \"house niggers.\" Slaves working inside were often taught more curtesy, to a certain extent anyway, so that they could be presentable to guests. This only exacerbated the problem. This contempt went both ways, as house slaves would often look down upon the field slaves and feel that they were better. This wasn't by accident. It was driven in by the slave masters to divide their slaves to keep them from working together and possibly revolting.  After slavery, former slaves continued their self segregation by skin darkness. Again, lighter colored black people would look down upon darker skinned ones, and the darker skinned black people would have contempt for the lighter ones.  I kid you not when I say black people as a culture keep secrets from white people. This one got out, and social media and pop news is putting a spotlight on it. Don't be fooled, it was there the whole time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9442.0,"score_ratio":1.1034482759}
+{"post_id":"dz0ok6","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV - In the USA (and spreading) 'Blackness' has become extremely prescriptive and performative leading to exclusionary and divisive attitudes and sentiments This is based around a lot of what I see coming from the US during social or political discussions. I first noticed it when the whole 'Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don't read' and him being 'dis-invited from the cookout' thingy was going on.  There often seems to be a dialogues based around whether people are 'black enough'. Basically meaning do they confirm to the right stereotypes with regards to who to vote for, what to eat or listen to and other arbitrary things like that. As a black man with less 'conventional' interests (although I'm UK based), especially as a younger man I've often found myself being called a 'Bounty' or an 'Oreo' etc exclusively by other black people for things as innocuous as listening to Pink Floyd and 'talking white'. This experience is echoed by people fro Tyler, The Creator to Childish Gambino - black guys that grew up with less conventional or stereotypical interests, and they often reflect this in their lyrics.  I feel like this is leading to internal segregation within the black community (characterised even - albeit differently here - with the 'Team lightskin v Team darkskin phase a little while back) as well as silly situations where the likes of Rachel Dolezal can eat the right food, drink the proverbial kool-aid and vote the right way and that guves her confidence to claim she's 'culturally black'. Far too much of black 'Identity' it seems just boils down to embracing stereotypes about our music, food, dialect or politica affiliation.  In my experience the people calling me an Oreo or a Bounty for liking Metal music (white people music) or 'Talking White' (not utilising much slang, speaking in a more refined way) are overwhelmingly if not exclusively other black people. Calling me out for being 'not black enough' or the 'wrong kind of black guy'. This expands to dating - in my experience black girls tend to stay away from 'Oreos' and I've had comments in the past that their brothers\/friends\/families wouldn't approve because of how I speak or dress (although I get the dirtiest looks from black girls if I'm ever with a white girl so I don't get that) and this experience is definitely not a rarity for people whose interests or experiences fall out of 'traditional' blackness which at this point has basically become synonymous with 'African American culture'.","c_root_id_A":"f84uhyp","c_root_id_B":"f84uw8x","created_at_utc_A":1574261017,"created_at_utc_B":1574261290,"score_A":6,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"I'd say that kind of sentiment is common in most cultures, whether it's cultural identity (\"you're not country, you don't even hunt\") or even music taste(\"how can you call yourself punk if you don't like Black Flag\"). Although I'd say that I can see how it can be problematic basing it on race considering the history of racism in the ... world","human_ref_B":"I agree with you that criticizing people for not being \"black enough\" is a significant issue, however, it is not new.  This issue goes all the way back to slavery when slave masters fathered half black children. These children sometimes have lighter skin and would often work inside the plantation mansion, dubbed \"the big house,\" when they became adults. They were disparaged by the field slaves as the \"house niggers.\" Slaves working inside were often taught more curtesy, to a certain extent anyway, so that they could be presentable to guests. This only exacerbated the problem. This contempt went both ways, as house slaves would often look down upon the field slaves and feel that they were better. This wasn't by accident. It was driven in by the slave masters to divide their slaves to keep them from working together and possibly revolting.  After slavery, former slaves continued their self segregation by skin darkness. Again, lighter colored black people would look down upon darker skinned ones, and the darker skinned black people would have contempt for the lighter ones.  I kid you not when I say black people as a culture keep secrets from white people. This one got out, and social media and pop news is putting a spotlight on it. Don't be fooled, it was there the whole time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":273.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"dz0ok6","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV - In the USA (and spreading) 'Blackness' has become extremely prescriptive and performative leading to exclusionary and divisive attitudes and sentiments This is based around a lot of what I see coming from the US during social or political discussions. I first noticed it when the whole 'Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don't read' and him being 'dis-invited from the cookout' thingy was going on.  There often seems to be a dialogues based around whether people are 'black enough'. Basically meaning do they confirm to the right stereotypes with regards to who to vote for, what to eat or listen to and other arbitrary things like that. As a black man with less 'conventional' interests (although I'm UK based), especially as a younger man I've often found myself being called a 'Bounty' or an 'Oreo' etc exclusively by other black people for things as innocuous as listening to Pink Floyd and 'talking white'. This experience is echoed by people fro Tyler, The Creator to Childish Gambino - black guys that grew up with less conventional or stereotypical interests, and they often reflect this in their lyrics.  I feel like this is leading to internal segregation within the black community (characterised even - albeit differently here - with the 'Team lightskin v Team darkskin phase a little while back) as well as silly situations where the likes of Rachel Dolezal can eat the right food, drink the proverbial kool-aid and vote the right way and that guves her confidence to claim she's 'culturally black'. Far too much of black 'Identity' it seems just boils down to embracing stereotypes about our music, food, dialect or politica affiliation.  In my experience the people calling me an Oreo or a Bounty for liking Metal music (white people music) or 'Talking White' (not utilising much slang, speaking in a more refined way) are overwhelmingly if not exclusively other black people. Calling me out for being 'not black enough' or the 'wrong kind of black guy'. This expands to dating - in my experience black girls tend to stay away from 'Oreos' and I've had comments in the past that their brothers\/friends\/families wouldn't approve because of how I speak or dress (although I get the dirtiest looks from black girls if I'm ever with a white girl so I don't get that) and this experience is definitely not a rarity for people whose interests or experiences fall out of 'traditional' blackness which at this point has basically become synonymous with 'African American culture'.","c_root_id_A":"f84uhyp","c_root_id_B":"f84vtqm","created_at_utc_A":1574261017,"created_at_utc_B":1574261923,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I'd say that kind of sentiment is common in most cultures, whether it's cultural identity (\"you're not country, you don't even hunt\") or even music taste(\"how can you call yourself punk if you don't like Black Flag\"). Although I'd say that I can see how it can be problematic basing it on race considering the history of racism in the ... world","human_ref_B":"You're not wrong, but this is not something new. Almost every cultural group (particularly the ignorant ones) have this problem. It's called the \"No True Scotsman\" fallacy and it's basically ignorant people making stupid claims about what defines a group of people and how breaking away from that in any way must mean that you aren't part of the group. If my suspicions are correct, a lot of them do it because they have imposter syndrome and like to reaffirm their own sense of belonging by isolating someone else. I can't tell you how many times I've had to deal with this in the South. \"No Southerner would ever drive a Nissan.\" \"You're Southern and you don't hunt?\" \"What Southerner hasn't had fried green tomatoes?\" Just ignore them man.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":906.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"dz0ok6","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV - In the USA (and spreading) 'Blackness' has become extremely prescriptive and performative leading to exclusionary and divisive attitudes and sentiments This is based around a lot of what I see coming from the US during social or political discussions. I first noticed it when the whole 'Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don't read' and him being 'dis-invited from the cookout' thingy was going on.  There often seems to be a dialogues based around whether people are 'black enough'. Basically meaning do they confirm to the right stereotypes with regards to who to vote for, what to eat or listen to and other arbitrary things like that. As a black man with less 'conventional' interests (although I'm UK based), especially as a younger man I've often found myself being called a 'Bounty' or an 'Oreo' etc exclusively by other black people for things as innocuous as listening to Pink Floyd and 'talking white'. This experience is echoed by people fro Tyler, The Creator to Childish Gambino - black guys that grew up with less conventional or stereotypical interests, and they often reflect this in their lyrics.  I feel like this is leading to internal segregation within the black community (characterised even - albeit differently here - with the 'Team lightskin v Team darkskin phase a little while back) as well as silly situations where the likes of Rachel Dolezal can eat the right food, drink the proverbial kool-aid and vote the right way and that guves her confidence to claim she's 'culturally black'. Far too much of black 'Identity' it seems just boils down to embracing stereotypes about our music, food, dialect or politica affiliation.  In my experience the people calling me an Oreo or a Bounty for liking Metal music (white people music) or 'Talking White' (not utilising much slang, speaking in a more refined way) are overwhelmingly if not exclusively other black people. Calling me out for being 'not black enough' or the 'wrong kind of black guy'. This expands to dating - in my experience black girls tend to stay away from 'Oreos' and I've had comments in the past that their brothers\/friends\/families wouldn't approve because of how I speak or dress (although I get the dirtiest looks from black girls if I'm ever with a white girl so I don't get that) and this experience is definitely not a rarity for people whose interests or experiences fall out of 'traditional' blackness which at this point has basically become synonymous with 'African American culture'.","c_root_id_A":"f850bcn","c_root_id_B":"f84uhyp","created_at_utc_A":1574264830,"created_at_utc_B":1574261017,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">This experience is echoed by people fro Tyler, The Creator to Childish Gambino - black guys that grew up with less conventional or stereotypical interests, and they often reflect this in their lyrics.  >I feel like this is leading to internal segregation  Can you explain how the black community \"segregates\" Tyler or Donald Glover? Because I saw a lot more memes on r\/BPTwitter celebrating Gambino than I did dragging Kanye.  Neither I nor a majority of this community is black, and I don't feel I can really address your feelings head on. Your experience is your experience. But I would encourage you to reflect on your experience, and also to consider how it makes an argument here. I can't say I quite follow your reasoning for an argument, it seems much more emotional than logical. I would also just personally encourage you to seek out a bit more theory. You're ascribing a while thought pattern to *different* women (ie women you've dated vs women giving you dirty looks when out with a white date). That is no more rational than someone telling you you're not \"black enough.\" I think reading some cultural theory might help you think about this stuff in a more focused way. At the very least, the writings would be explicit thoughts about blackness, rather than strung-together attitudes of different people.","human_ref_B":"I'd say that kind of sentiment is common in most cultures, whether it's cultural identity (\"you're not country, you don't even hunt\") or even music taste(\"how can you call yourself punk if you don't like Black Flag\"). Although I'd say that I can see how it can be problematic basing it on race considering the history of racism in the ... world","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3813.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"dz0ok6","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV - In the USA (and spreading) 'Blackness' has become extremely prescriptive and performative leading to exclusionary and divisive attitudes and sentiments This is based around a lot of what I see coming from the US during social or political discussions. I first noticed it when the whole 'Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don't read' and him being 'dis-invited from the cookout' thingy was going on.  There often seems to be a dialogues based around whether people are 'black enough'. Basically meaning do they confirm to the right stereotypes with regards to who to vote for, what to eat or listen to and other arbitrary things like that. As a black man with less 'conventional' interests (although I'm UK based), especially as a younger man I've often found myself being called a 'Bounty' or an 'Oreo' etc exclusively by other black people for things as innocuous as listening to Pink Floyd and 'talking white'. This experience is echoed by people fro Tyler, The Creator to Childish Gambino - black guys that grew up with less conventional or stereotypical interests, and they often reflect this in their lyrics.  I feel like this is leading to internal segregation within the black community (characterised even - albeit differently here - with the 'Team lightskin v Team darkskin phase a little while back) as well as silly situations where the likes of Rachel Dolezal can eat the right food, drink the proverbial kool-aid and vote the right way and that guves her confidence to claim she's 'culturally black'. Far too much of black 'Identity' it seems just boils down to embracing stereotypes about our music, food, dialect or politica affiliation.  In my experience the people calling me an Oreo or a Bounty for liking Metal music (white people music) or 'Talking White' (not utilising much slang, speaking in a more refined way) are overwhelmingly if not exclusively other black people. Calling me out for being 'not black enough' or the 'wrong kind of black guy'. This expands to dating - in my experience black girls tend to stay away from 'Oreos' and I've had comments in the past that their brothers\/friends\/families wouldn't approve because of how I speak or dress (although I get the dirtiest looks from black girls if I'm ever with a white girl so I don't get that) and this experience is definitely not a rarity for people whose interests or experiences fall out of 'traditional' blackness which at this point has basically become synonymous with 'African American culture'.","c_root_id_A":"f84y008","c_root_id_B":"f850bcn","created_at_utc_A":1574263351,"created_at_utc_B":1574264830,"score_A":6,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Not black, but I would probably push back on the \"it's getting worse\" aspect of your argument. This type of attitude has been around as long as segregation has. Given mixed marriages are becoming more common, black social mobility is slowly increasing, black cultural representation in the mainstream dominant culture is increasing and will continue to increase, I would say the black gatekeeping phenomenon described in your view will probably continue to decrease, though not without significant push back. As our two cultures continue assimilating there'll be pushback from racists on both sides who feel like their own culture is getting diluted or stolen. Something cool is emerging from that fire, and I think that shows in the evidence you cited, as Childish, Tyler the Creator, Frank Ocean, etc would have been impossible a 20 years ago","human_ref_B":">This experience is echoed by people fro Tyler, The Creator to Childish Gambino - black guys that grew up with less conventional or stereotypical interests, and they often reflect this in their lyrics.  >I feel like this is leading to internal segregation  Can you explain how the black community \"segregates\" Tyler or Donald Glover? Because I saw a lot more memes on r\/BPTwitter celebrating Gambino than I did dragging Kanye.  Neither I nor a majority of this community is black, and I don't feel I can really address your feelings head on. Your experience is your experience. But I would encourage you to reflect on your experience, and also to consider how it makes an argument here. I can't say I quite follow your reasoning for an argument, it seems much more emotional than logical. I would also just personally encourage you to seek out a bit more theory. You're ascribing a while thought pattern to *different* women (ie women you've dated vs women giving you dirty looks when out with a white date). That is no more rational than someone telling you you're not \"black enough.\" I think reading some cultural theory might help you think about this stuff in a more focused way. At the very least, the writings would be explicit thoughts about blackness, rather than strung-together attitudes of different people.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1479.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"y3kk0v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Social Welfare Needs to be Increased I think the current system is 100% broken. Handing out cash based on household headcount or disability does work. It doesn\u2019t improve the lives of those on welfare\/disability and it doesn\u2019t stimulate the economy.   I think a new, larger system needs to be put in place.   1) If you qualify for welfare or disability, you automatically receive free state-run childcare.  2) You must be employed or actively in classes\/training to receive benefits (unless your disability truly precludes you from any industry). 6 weeks without employment or job training\/classes - you are out of the program.   3) Those on welfare (with experience or after job training\/education) are given priority hiring for jobs paid for (partially or in full) by the State.   Any job that exists, that receive money from tax payers:   - state funded childcare\/medical clinics\/road crews,  - janitorial\/admin\/support staff roles at state colleges\/universities\/elementary\/middle\/high schools,  - sanitation workers, meter maids,  - police force admin\/janitorial\/maintenance shops\/uniformed officers.   3.1\u2026 Advanced Job training, higher education toward any of these state funded jobs should be available free of charge for anyone on welfare\/disability. (Electrician training and apprenticeship for state employees electricians, etc)   In the end: Welfare or disability should be a tool, to help an individual or family to transition to a fully self sufficient earner. Only individuals\/families with true medical inabilities to participate in the workforce should be on life long benefits. Increases to childcare availability and state funded jobs, should be where the money goes - not to individuals for their entire lives, with no option\/incentive to become self-sufficient.","c_root_id_A":"is9y5be","c_root_id_B":"isake9t","created_at_utc_A":1665747244,"created_at_utc_B":1665757939,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So the difficulty with childcare can often be with finding a daycare, not even paying for one. This is especially true for people who work unusual hours and need daycares that work when they do.   And at least in Kentucky, what you describe is already the case. Those who receive KTAP (the Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program) benefits must work or be involved in the KentuckyWORKS program (which connects people with job training, volunteer hours, things like that) while receiving assistance. These restrictions were lifted during COVID but they're back in place as of a few months ago.   The big thing I see people run into is the times when this KTAP assistance, even with childcare assistance, basically ends up paying for daycare and transportation. Their rent assistance takes a slice of their income, their SNAP benefits go down a little bit, their childcare assistance is a little smaller because they have income, and then the assistance doesn't cover the full cost of daycare, because the only ones that would be covered are unsafe for the kids or too far away to make transportation feasible. Some people's options for housing are more limited, so they end up having to take an apartment that's not on a bus line, or they live somewhere where any bus trip takes a couple hours. That means to have any reasonable shot at holding a job, they've now got to Uber or taxi their way, unless they have someone who can drive them for free.  Now, if someone's got a job, it's all well and good to at least have some of this paid for. But they have to do all this spending BEFORE they have a job - so during their job hunt, and while volunteering or during training. It means for a number of people they have to spend a whole lot of time and energy to be exactly where they were before assistance, and if any of this falls out of whack, they're in a WORSE spot than before.   And all this is to prevent what is usually less than $300 of fraud per month, which is only available for 60 months in a lifetime. No one is living comfortably on this money. I do get incentivizing participation in work programs, but I also get that they don't really help everyone the same way.  IMO the best thing anyone could do in the immediate would be to start paying for public transportation for anyone under a certain income, and pour a whole lot of money into improving the public transportation infrastructure in the US. It's in a shameful state as it is now. Most of my clients NEED a car in order to hold a job, but none of their benefits factor in paying for a car as part of non-luxury expenses. So your rent is a third of your income, your food is a third of your income, and your car becomes the last third, when it's supposed to be for \"everything else.\" And then the only car they can afford is a piece of crap that's going to need hundreds or thousands of dollars in repairs over the next couple years, if it makes it that long. Having reliable, free transportation that can actually meet their needs would be huge for so many of my clients.","human_ref_B":">It doesn\u2019t improve the lives of those on welfare\/disability and it doesn\u2019t stimulate the economy.  It absolutely does, not starving is way better then starving.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10695.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"y3kk0v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Social Welfare Needs to be Increased I think the current system is 100% broken. Handing out cash based on household headcount or disability does work. It doesn\u2019t improve the lives of those on welfare\/disability and it doesn\u2019t stimulate the economy.   I think a new, larger system needs to be put in place.   1) If you qualify for welfare or disability, you automatically receive free state-run childcare.  2) You must be employed or actively in classes\/training to receive benefits (unless your disability truly precludes you from any industry). 6 weeks without employment or job training\/classes - you are out of the program.   3) Those on welfare (with experience or after job training\/education) are given priority hiring for jobs paid for (partially or in full) by the State.   Any job that exists, that receive money from tax payers:   - state funded childcare\/medical clinics\/road crews,  - janitorial\/admin\/support staff roles at state colleges\/universities\/elementary\/middle\/high schools,  - sanitation workers, meter maids,  - police force admin\/janitorial\/maintenance shops\/uniformed officers.   3.1\u2026 Advanced Job training, higher education toward any of these state funded jobs should be available free of charge for anyone on welfare\/disability. (Electrician training and apprenticeship for state employees electricians, etc)   In the end: Welfare or disability should be a tool, to help an individual or family to transition to a fully self sufficient earner. Only individuals\/families with true medical inabilities to participate in the workforce should be on life long benefits. Increases to childcare availability and state funded jobs, should be where the money goes - not to individuals for their entire lives, with no option\/incentive to become self-sufficient.","c_root_id_A":"isake9t","c_root_id_B":"isa8qlv","created_at_utc_A":1665757939,"created_at_utc_B":1665752892,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">It doesn\u2019t improve the lives of those on welfare\/disability and it doesn\u2019t stimulate the economy.  It absolutely does, not starving is way better then starving.","human_ref_B":"Instead of a system to support only those in poor financial situations we should switch to a universal support system. The government should supply childcare to everyone, everyone should receive a basic income generated through taxes on the top 1% of earners and large corporations, healthcare of all forms should be free of charge to everyone, the government should institute policies to prevent homes from remaining empty.   This would remove any disincentive to improving one's situation and possibly missing out on benefits. It would remove the argument that it is unfair to middle class earners to give these benefits only to the lowest class. It would create a system to ensure that every person is fed, housed and able to receive care.   And don't let anyone tell you we can't afford this or it would hurt the middle class. This could all be accomplished with a tax on the 1% and closing all the bullshit loopholes they use to avoid taxes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5047.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"y3kk0v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Social Welfare Needs to be Increased I think the current system is 100% broken. Handing out cash based on household headcount or disability does work. It doesn\u2019t improve the lives of those on welfare\/disability and it doesn\u2019t stimulate the economy.   I think a new, larger system needs to be put in place.   1) If you qualify for welfare or disability, you automatically receive free state-run childcare.  2) You must be employed or actively in classes\/training to receive benefits (unless your disability truly precludes you from any industry). 6 weeks without employment or job training\/classes - you are out of the program.   3) Those on welfare (with experience or after job training\/education) are given priority hiring for jobs paid for (partially or in full) by the State.   Any job that exists, that receive money from tax payers:   - state funded childcare\/medical clinics\/road crews,  - janitorial\/admin\/support staff roles at state colleges\/universities\/elementary\/middle\/high schools,  - sanitation workers, meter maids,  - police force admin\/janitorial\/maintenance shops\/uniformed officers.   3.1\u2026 Advanced Job training, higher education toward any of these state funded jobs should be available free of charge for anyone on welfare\/disability. (Electrician training and apprenticeship for state employees electricians, etc)   In the end: Welfare or disability should be a tool, to help an individual or family to transition to a fully self sufficient earner. Only individuals\/families with true medical inabilities to participate in the workforce should be on life long benefits. Increases to childcare availability and state funded jobs, should be where the money goes - not to individuals for their entire lives, with no option\/incentive to become self-sufficient.","c_root_id_A":"isake9t","c_root_id_B":"isadn79","created_at_utc_A":1665757939,"created_at_utc_B":1665755118,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">It doesn\u2019t improve the lives of those on welfare\/disability and it doesn\u2019t stimulate the economy.  It absolutely does, not starving is way better then starving.","human_ref_B":"Ideally, but we learned greed will always win so in reality people just need to take care of themselves and some people will suffer.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2821.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i54ckqn","c_root_id_B":"i548vkd","created_at_utc_A":1650225184,"created_at_utc_B":1650223582,"score_A":23,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It sounds like you are misunderstanding just how deep cults sink their hooks into their followers. Many ask their members to give up everything else in life, and view the leader as a godlike entity.  Drinking Coke over Pespi because they have the best marketing campaign isn't quite as invasive.","human_ref_B":"I buy Uniqlo jeans because they are comfortable, I like the way they look, and they provide decent quality for the price point.  Does that make me a cult member because they provide a product that I enjoy and get utility from?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1602.0,"score_ratio":11.5}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i54de7j","c_root_id_B":"i54gc75","created_at_utc_A":1650225539,"created_at_utc_B":1650226809,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores.  > Brands are basically cults  Virtually every company has a brand, and most brands are just small and pretty bland.","human_ref_B":"Brands can definitely have \"cult-like followings\" but most brands aren't cults themselves. A cult brand refers to a product or service that has a relatively small but loyal customer base that verges on fanaticism. A cult brand, unlike more traditional brands, has customers who feel a sense of self-ownership or vested interest in the brand's popularity and success.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1270.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i54gc75","c_root_id_B":"i548vkd","created_at_utc_A":1650226809,"created_at_utc_B":1650223582,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Brands can definitely have \"cult-like followings\" but most brands aren't cults themselves. A cult brand refers to a product or service that has a relatively small but loyal customer base that verges on fanaticism. A cult brand, unlike more traditional brands, has customers who feel a sense of self-ownership or vested interest in the brand's popularity and success.","human_ref_B":"I buy Uniqlo jeans because they are comfortable, I like the way they look, and they provide decent quality for the price point.  Does that make me a cult member because they provide a product that I enjoy and get utility from?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3227.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i54fsbg","c_root_id_B":"i54gc75","created_at_utc_A":1650226577,"created_at_utc_B":1650226809,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"every product has a brand, not all of them are well known, and most brands are factual, its the more outlandish ones you remember.     your view is to broad","human_ref_B":"Brands can definitely have \"cult-like followings\" but most brands aren't cults themselves. A cult brand refers to a product or service that has a relatively small but loyal customer base that verges on fanaticism. A cult brand, unlike more traditional brands, has customers who feel a sense of self-ownership or vested interest in the brand's popularity and success.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":232.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i54de7j","c_root_id_B":"i548vkd","created_at_utc_A":1650225539,"created_at_utc_B":1650223582,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores.  > Brands are basically cults  Virtually every company has a brand, and most brands are just small and pretty bland.","human_ref_B":"I buy Uniqlo jeans because they are comfortable, I like the way they look, and they provide decent quality for the price point.  Does that make me a cult member because they provide a product that I enjoy and get utility from?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1957.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i548vkd","c_root_id_B":"i54hv3i","created_at_utc_A":1650223582,"created_at_utc_B":1650227466,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I buy Uniqlo jeans because they are comfortable, I like the way they look, and they provide decent quality for the price point.  Does that make me a cult member because they provide a product that I enjoy and get utility from?","human_ref_B":"I think you lay out good points. Maybe it's important to distinguish whom they influence and the scope they have control over.   And what is actually being promoted--not just the company but the idea of consumption and the behavioral tricks to keep a customer always dissatisfied by promoting new models of a product every year (cars, phones, etc.).  For example, an employee for some companies will certainly be indoctrinated and barred from engaging a competitor brand. e.g. coca cola products (including juices) , or at one point in time GM vs Ford cars, American vs. imported if you worked for a Union.  And yes, people often will introduce themselves by their job and employer, rather than communities they belong to.  But I think there's a spectrum for the consumer\/public side of things. Like some such as Lululemon or apple definitely have a sort of corporate nationalism\/cult base.  While a company like YKK that makes zippers doesn't really seek to capture an active and vocal base (as far as I can tell), they just make the product and get it distributed to other garment industry entities.  And also what about a mom and pop convenience store that has a \"brand\" but they don't really mind if you take your business elsewhere especially if you're not anywhere near the neighborhood they service or if you wind up picking up ice cream from the grocery store on the way home from work instead of at their shop?  So maybe the Business to Customer vs. Business to Business distinction needs to be in place, and also how active or aggressive they are, and then whether the cult like dynamic exists there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3884.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i54hv3i","c_root_id_B":"i54fsbg","created_at_utc_A":1650227466,"created_at_utc_B":1650226577,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I think you lay out good points. Maybe it's important to distinguish whom they influence and the scope they have control over.   And what is actually being promoted--not just the company but the idea of consumption and the behavioral tricks to keep a customer always dissatisfied by promoting new models of a product every year (cars, phones, etc.).  For example, an employee for some companies will certainly be indoctrinated and barred from engaging a competitor brand. e.g. coca cola products (including juices) , or at one point in time GM vs Ford cars, American vs. imported if you worked for a Union.  And yes, people often will introduce themselves by their job and employer, rather than communities they belong to.  But I think there's a spectrum for the consumer\/public side of things. Like some such as Lululemon or apple definitely have a sort of corporate nationalism\/cult base.  While a company like YKK that makes zippers doesn't really seek to capture an active and vocal base (as far as I can tell), they just make the product and get it distributed to other garment industry entities.  And also what about a mom and pop convenience store that has a \"brand\" but they don't really mind if you take your business elsewhere especially if you're not anywhere near the neighborhood they service or if you wind up picking up ice cream from the grocery store on the way home from work instead of at their shop?  So maybe the Business to Customer vs. Business to Business distinction needs to be in place, and also how active or aggressive they are, and then whether the cult like dynamic exists there.","human_ref_B":"every product has a brand, not all of them are well known, and most brands are factual, its the more outlandish ones you remember.     your view is to broad","labels":1,"seconds_difference":889.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i548vkd","c_root_id_B":"i54lk5b","created_at_utc_A":1650223582,"created_at_utc_B":1650229037,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I buy Uniqlo jeans because they are comfortable, I like the way they look, and they provide decent quality for the price point.  Does that make me a cult member because they provide a product that I enjoy and get utility from?","human_ref_B":"Apple is a cult. Their hardware won't work with anyone else's gadgets, won't run outside apps, once you buy an apple product you are locked in and must shun all non apple users.  But most commercials are just televangelists. Buy our thing today and we'll pray you get to heaven or at least a beach in paradise. Tomorrow although we want you back you are free to buy the other brand, or listen to the preacher in the next time slot to stretch the analogy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5455.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i54lk5b","c_root_id_B":"i54fsbg","created_at_utc_A":1650229037,"created_at_utc_B":1650226577,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Apple is a cult. Their hardware won't work with anyone else's gadgets, won't run outside apps, once you buy an apple product you are locked in and must shun all non apple users.  But most commercials are just televangelists. Buy our thing today and we'll pray you get to heaven or at least a beach in paradise. Tomorrow although we want you back you are free to buy the other brand, or listen to the preacher in the next time slot to stretch the analogy.","human_ref_B":"every product has a brand, not all of them are well known, and most brands are factual, its the more outlandish ones you remember.     your view is to broad","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2460.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i54lk5b","c_root_id_B":"i54jr0e","created_at_utc_A":1650229037,"created_at_utc_B":1650228260,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Apple is a cult. Their hardware won't work with anyone else's gadgets, won't run outside apps, once you buy an apple product you are locked in and must shun all non apple users.  But most commercials are just televangelists. Buy our thing today and we'll pray you get to heaven or at least a beach in paradise. Tomorrow although we want you back you are free to buy the other brand, or listen to the preacher in the next time slot to stretch the analogy.","human_ref_B":"A brand is a reassurance to the consumer of quality and consistency. That's really it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":777.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i548vkd","c_root_id_B":"i54ywtt","created_at_utc_A":1650223582,"created_at_utc_B":1650234823,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I buy Uniqlo jeans because they are comfortable, I like the way they look, and they provide decent quality for the price point.  Does that make me a cult member because they provide a product that I enjoy and get utility from?","human_ref_B":"cults don't operate by being like   \"yo, this thing is cool, do it\"   they operate by glorifying one thing (typically a person) and making the follower lose their sense of self for the sake of the cult.   a cult might do some kind of marketing, but a cult will actually harm someone once they ojoin","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11241.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i54fsbg","c_root_id_B":"i54ywtt","created_at_utc_A":1650226577,"created_at_utc_B":1650234823,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"every product has a brand, not all of them are well known, and most brands are factual, its the more outlandish ones you remember.     your view is to broad","human_ref_B":"cults don't operate by being like   \"yo, this thing is cool, do it\"   they operate by glorifying one thing (typically a person) and making the follower lose their sense of self for the sake of the cult.   a cult might do some kind of marketing, but a cult will actually harm someone once they ojoin","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8246.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i54ywtt","c_root_id_B":"i54jr0e","created_at_utc_A":1650234823,"created_at_utc_B":1650228260,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"cults don't operate by being like   \"yo, this thing is cool, do it\"   they operate by glorifying one thing (typically a person) and making the follower lose their sense of self for the sake of the cult.   a cult might do some kind of marketing, but a cult will actually harm someone once they ojoin","human_ref_B":"A brand is a reassurance to the consumer of quality and consistency. That's really it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6563.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u5tnkl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Brands are basically cults First off, they basically use legal indoctrination tactics, selling you promises, like beer companies basically telling you that if you buy there beer you will end up on a beach with hot chicks in bikinis. They even draw you in with discounts and sales, hell, ones like McDonald\u2019s even try to attract kids with toys. You will also notice that with certain brands, their customers refuse to shop anywhere but at their stores. Those people that only buy Gucci because it has been told to them that they will appear rich and important if they do. People who only order Starbucks even though it\u2019s extraordinarily expensive for the same thing you could make at home.","c_root_id_A":"i54m23f","c_root_id_B":"i54ywtt","created_at_utc_A":1650229253,"created_at_utc_B":1650234823,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Brands are primarily names you can trust. You want to buy a product and want to know its quality. You can't personally test each product before buying, so you have to trust someone. Unless you buy everything from your local store where you trust the shopkeeper personally, the best option is the brand name of the product. In a world without brands, you would only be offered no-name products without predictable quality.  Sure, marketing sometimes takes takes it one or even many steps too far, but in a world with trade, brands are essential for consumers to make any efficient, meaningful decisions.","human_ref_B":"cults don't operate by being like   \"yo, this thing is cool, do it\"   they operate by glorifying one thing (typically a person) and making the follower lose their sense of self for the sake of the cult.   a cult might do some kind of marketing, but a cult will actually harm someone once they ojoin","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5570.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"arb9yn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: A certain amount of body positivity is good, but people should be ashamed to be morbidly obese. People with a few extra pounds should not be shamed into losing weight and nobody should be expected to be stick thinny, insta-thick or ripped. Not everyone has the same build (and that's good) and healthy bodies don't all look the same. Not everyone has the time to have a perfect body.  However, if you're taking up two seats on an airplane, it's time for a change and we shouldn't act like 40+% body-fat is normal or \"beautiful\".   There are certainly some people with disorders who cannot help it, but that's not who I'm talking about. We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves. Basically I'm pro body-positivity, but there's a point where it becomes harmful.","c_root_id_A":"eglzjgm","c_root_id_B":"egm05he","created_at_utc_A":1550341211,"created_at_utc_B":1550341710,"score_A":44,"score_B":243,"human_ref_A":"Why should they be ashamed? We know that shame isn't a good motivator to change. Maybe we should encourage them to feel proud of their ability to change their bodies and help support them as best we can so that they start to make better decisions about diet and exercise?","human_ref_B":"I question the whole supposed common sense notion that shame is a good motivator for this kind of thing. We can go back to that study (which I hope you've seen but I can go searching for it if you need me to) which showed exactly the negative effect of shame tactics.  &#x200B;  People who fee bad about may sometimes change their habits. But people who are very overweight are often that way at least partly because they eat as a response to stress and low self esteem. Increasing the shame in their lives can easily have the opposite of the desired effect.  &#x200B;  Also, not knowing where an individual is at in their weight loss means the shame can come at a very wrong time. Someone can be trying hard to limit their diet, but it can take a long time to see results. Experiencing shame then can lead to a \"Why bother\" attitude. Even worse for someone who has just tried and failed a diet.   &#x200B;  There is another way. Shame isn't the only plausible motivator. How about the notion that people deserve a healthier body and they need to change their eating and exercise habits to get there?  I think what we're finding in a lot of areas of human motivation, our instinct to punish in order to change behavior doesn't work very well a lot of the time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":499.0,"score_ratio":5.5227272727}
+{"post_id":"arb9yn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: A certain amount of body positivity is good, but people should be ashamed to be morbidly obese. People with a few extra pounds should not be shamed into losing weight and nobody should be expected to be stick thinny, insta-thick or ripped. Not everyone has the same build (and that's good) and healthy bodies don't all look the same. Not everyone has the time to have a perfect body.  However, if you're taking up two seats on an airplane, it's time for a change and we shouldn't act like 40+% body-fat is normal or \"beautiful\".   There are certainly some people with disorders who cannot help it, but that's not who I'm talking about. We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves. Basically I'm pro body-positivity, but there's a point where it becomes harmful.","c_root_id_A":"egn21fz","c_root_id_B":"egm27yu","created_at_utc_A":1550373969,"created_at_utc_B":1550343361,"score_A":11,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":">We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves.   That is a claim that current science doesn't support. Despite what people on the internet say.  The heritability of bodyweight has been well-known for a couple of decades now thanks to identical twin and adoption studies.  It around 75 percent, while height is 95 percent.  So if you are born to fat parents, you're gonna be fat.  If you are born to thin parents, you are going to be thin.  If you put the fat parent's baby with the thin family, they don't grow up to be thin like the adoptive parents, they grow up to be fat like the biological parents. This has been measured and quantified for decades now.  So why yes, the genetics haven't changed, but that doesn't mean our willpower has changed either.  Yet clearly our environment of a mcdonalds on every corner has changed. We haven't been working the fields for 10 hour days anymore.  So saying obesity is a choice is not evaluating the whole picture fairly.  Hunger is a very powerful and millions of years evolved pressure to conserve fat for periods of famine. So saying it can be \"controlled\" or \"ignored\" is easy for someone to say who doesn't have the same level of hunger.  The \"choice\" of obesity isn't as cut and dried as much as amateur thermodynamics supporters say. While the statement my be true, doesn't include the causation for \"calories in\" being in someone's control as we would like to believe it is. Our body can make choices for us. Hold your breathe. Go on. You'll breathe eventually. It is physically impossible to hold your breath until you pass out. Your body made you. So you made the choice not to breathe, but eventually your body makes you. The process of hunger is just as old as your involuntary process it is to breathe evolutionary speaking. Eventually you give in to hunger, just as you did in taking a breath.  sources:  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/nejm198601233140401  https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/j.1600-0447.1993.tb05363.x  https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/0800548  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJM199005243222102  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC1835397\/  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC2570383\/","human_ref_B":"People tend to respond better to positive motivation over negative motivation.  If you have self loathing it can kind of send you into a loop of hating yourself so much that you don't see the point in changing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30608.0,"score_ratio":1.2222222222}
+{"post_id":"arb9yn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: A certain amount of body positivity is good, but people should be ashamed to be morbidly obese. People with a few extra pounds should not be shamed into losing weight and nobody should be expected to be stick thinny, insta-thick or ripped. Not everyone has the same build (and that's good) and healthy bodies don't all look the same. Not everyone has the time to have a perfect body.  However, if you're taking up two seats on an airplane, it's time for a change and we shouldn't act like 40+% body-fat is normal or \"beautiful\".   There are certainly some people with disorders who cannot help it, but that's not who I'm talking about. We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves. Basically I'm pro body-positivity, but there's a point where it becomes harmful.","c_root_id_A":"egn21fz","c_root_id_B":"egmnyk2","created_at_utc_A":1550373969,"created_at_utc_B":1550361449,"score_A":11,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves.   That is a claim that current science doesn't support. Despite what people on the internet say.  The heritability of bodyweight has been well-known for a couple of decades now thanks to identical twin and adoption studies.  It around 75 percent, while height is 95 percent.  So if you are born to fat parents, you're gonna be fat.  If you are born to thin parents, you are going to be thin.  If you put the fat parent's baby with the thin family, they don't grow up to be thin like the adoptive parents, they grow up to be fat like the biological parents. This has been measured and quantified for decades now.  So why yes, the genetics haven't changed, but that doesn't mean our willpower has changed either.  Yet clearly our environment of a mcdonalds on every corner has changed. We haven't been working the fields for 10 hour days anymore.  So saying obesity is a choice is not evaluating the whole picture fairly.  Hunger is a very powerful and millions of years evolved pressure to conserve fat for periods of famine. So saying it can be \"controlled\" or \"ignored\" is easy for someone to say who doesn't have the same level of hunger.  The \"choice\" of obesity isn't as cut and dried as much as amateur thermodynamics supporters say. While the statement my be true, doesn't include the causation for \"calories in\" being in someone's control as we would like to believe it is. Our body can make choices for us. Hold your breathe. Go on. You'll breathe eventually. It is physically impossible to hold your breath until you pass out. Your body made you. So you made the choice not to breathe, but eventually your body makes you. The process of hunger is just as old as your involuntary process it is to breathe evolutionary speaking. Eventually you give in to hunger, just as you did in taking a breath.  sources:  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/nejm198601233140401  https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/j.1600-0447.1993.tb05363.x  https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/0800548  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJM199005243222102  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC1835397\/  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC2570383\/","human_ref_B":"If you hate your body, why take care of it? We care for things we love. Even a body with health issues (whatever it looks like) is lovable. Think about how hard your body works to keep you alive, even if mentally you've given up. If you love your body, as is, with its \"imperfections\", you're more likely to nurture it with healthy food, exercise, showering regularly, brushing teeth, etc. Focusing on how healthy you think a person looks vs helping someone who wants to develop healthier habits makes little sense. After all, someone can be much smaller and have poor health. Most people have poor diets. Maybe instead we should shame the companies who poison our food, market plastic as food, and create food deserts.  Personal","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12520.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
+{"post_id":"arb9yn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: A certain amount of body positivity is good, but people should be ashamed to be morbidly obese. People with a few extra pounds should not be shamed into losing weight and nobody should be expected to be stick thinny, insta-thick or ripped. Not everyone has the same build (and that's good) and healthy bodies don't all look the same. Not everyone has the time to have a perfect body.  However, if you're taking up two seats on an airplane, it's time for a change and we shouldn't act like 40+% body-fat is normal or \"beautiful\".   There are certainly some people with disorders who cannot help it, but that's not who I'm talking about. We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves. Basically I'm pro body-positivity, but there's a point where it becomes harmful.","c_root_id_A":"egmdji2","c_root_id_B":"egn21fz","created_at_utc_A":1550352542,"created_at_utc_B":1550373969,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Positive reinforcement is always the better answer. Shame impacts  people's self esteem, and poor self esteem increases the likelihood of self destructive behaviours. Better to encourage people to do healthy things than to try and discourage them from doing unhealthy things.","human_ref_B":">We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves.   That is a claim that current science doesn't support. Despite what people on the internet say.  The heritability of bodyweight has been well-known for a couple of decades now thanks to identical twin and adoption studies.  It around 75 percent, while height is 95 percent.  So if you are born to fat parents, you're gonna be fat.  If you are born to thin parents, you are going to be thin.  If you put the fat parent's baby with the thin family, they don't grow up to be thin like the adoptive parents, they grow up to be fat like the biological parents. This has been measured and quantified for decades now.  So why yes, the genetics haven't changed, but that doesn't mean our willpower has changed either.  Yet clearly our environment of a mcdonalds on every corner has changed. We haven't been working the fields for 10 hour days anymore.  So saying obesity is a choice is not evaluating the whole picture fairly.  Hunger is a very powerful and millions of years evolved pressure to conserve fat for periods of famine. So saying it can be \"controlled\" or \"ignored\" is easy for someone to say who doesn't have the same level of hunger.  The \"choice\" of obesity isn't as cut and dried as much as amateur thermodynamics supporters say. While the statement my be true, doesn't include the causation for \"calories in\" being in someone's control as we would like to believe it is. Our body can make choices for us. Hold your breathe. Go on. You'll breathe eventually. It is physically impossible to hold your breath until you pass out. Your body made you. So you made the choice not to breathe, but eventually your body makes you. The process of hunger is just as old as your involuntary process it is to breathe evolutionary speaking. Eventually you give in to hunger, just as you did in taking a breath.  sources:  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/nejm198601233140401  https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/j.1600-0447.1993.tb05363.x  https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/0800548  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJM199005243222102  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC1835397\/  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC2570383\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21427.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"arb9yn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: A certain amount of body positivity is good, but people should be ashamed to be morbidly obese. People with a few extra pounds should not be shamed into losing weight and nobody should be expected to be stick thinny, insta-thick or ripped. Not everyone has the same build (and that's good) and healthy bodies don't all look the same. Not everyone has the time to have a perfect body.  However, if you're taking up two seats on an airplane, it's time for a change and we shouldn't act like 40+% body-fat is normal or \"beautiful\".   There are certainly some people with disorders who cannot help it, but that's not who I'm talking about. We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves. Basically I'm pro body-positivity, but there's a point where it becomes harmful.","c_root_id_A":"egn21fz","c_root_id_B":"egm4dfj","created_at_utc_A":1550373969,"created_at_utc_B":1550345090,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves.   That is a claim that current science doesn't support. Despite what people on the internet say.  The heritability of bodyweight has been well-known for a couple of decades now thanks to identical twin and adoption studies.  It around 75 percent, while height is 95 percent.  So if you are born to fat parents, you're gonna be fat.  If you are born to thin parents, you are going to be thin.  If you put the fat parent's baby with the thin family, they don't grow up to be thin like the adoptive parents, they grow up to be fat like the biological parents. This has been measured and quantified for decades now.  So why yes, the genetics haven't changed, but that doesn't mean our willpower has changed either.  Yet clearly our environment of a mcdonalds on every corner has changed. We haven't been working the fields for 10 hour days anymore.  So saying obesity is a choice is not evaluating the whole picture fairly.  Hunger is a very powerful and millions of years evolved pressure to conserve fat for periods of famine. So saying it can be \"controlled\" or \"ignored\" is easy for someone to say who doesn't have the same level of hunger.  The \"choice\" of obesity isn't as cut and dried as much as amateur thermodynamics supporters say. While the statement my be true, doesn't include the causation for \"calories in\" being in someone's control as we would like to believe it is. Our body can make choices for us. Hold your breathe. Go on. You'll breathe eventually. It is physically impossible to hold your breath until you pass out. Your body made you. So you made the choice not to breathe, but eventually your body makes you. The process of hunger is just as old as your involuntary process it is to breathe evolutionary speaking. Eventually you give in to hunger, just as you did in taking a breath.  sources:  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/nejm198601233140401  https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/j.1600-0447.1993.tb05363.x  https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/0800548  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJM199005243222102  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC1835397\/  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC2570383\/","human_ref_B":"Well I don\u2019t think you should judge them either way. I don\u2019t know what the issues like plane seats and maybe they need to pay for two seats but we shouldn\u2019t tell them to lose weight much or say they\u2019re too fat. Just let them be let them change if they want to certainly no need to be make them feel bad.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28879.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"arb9yn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: A certain amount of body positivity is good, but people should be ashamed to be morbidly obese. People with a few extra pounds should not be shamed into losing weight and nobody should be expected to be stick thinny, insta-thick or ripped. Not everyone has the same build (and that's good) and healthy bodies don't all look the same. Not everyone has the time to have a perfect body.  However, if you're taking up two seats on an airplane, it's time for a change and we shouldn't act like 40+% body-fat is normal or \"beautiful\".   There are certainly some people with disorders who cannot help it, but that's not who I'm talking about. We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves. Basically I'm pro body-positivity, but there's a point where it becomes harmful.","c_root_id_A":"egn21fz","c_root_id_B":"egmyt1n","created_at_utc_A":1550373969,"created_at_utc_B":1550371094,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves.   That is a claim that current science doesn't support. Despite what people on the internet say.  The heritability of bodyweight has been well-known for a couple of decades now thanks to identical twin and adoption studies.  It around 75 percent, while height is 95 percent.  So if you are born to fat parents, you're gonna be fat.  If you are born to thin parents, you are going to be thin.  If you put the fat parent's baby with the thin family, they don't grow up to be thin like the adoptive parents, they grow up to be fat like the biological parents. This has been measured and quantified for decades now.  So why yes, the genetics haven't changed, but that doesn't mean our willpower has changed either.  Yet clearly our environment of a mcdonalds on every corner has changed. We haven't been working the fields for 10 hour days anymore.  So saying obesity is a choice is not evaluating the whole picture fairly.  Hunger is a very powerful and millions of years evolved pressure to conserve fat for periods of famine. So saying it can be \"controlled\" or \"ignored\" is easy for someone to say who doesn't have the same level of hunger.  The \"choice\" of obesity isn't as cut and dried as much as amateur thermodynamics supporters say. While the statement my be true, doesn't include the causation for \"calories in\" being in someone's control as we would like to believe it is. Our body can make choices for us. Hold your breathe. Go on. You'll breathe eventually. It is physically impossible to hold your breath until you pass out. Your body made you. So you made the choice not to breathe, but eventually your body makes you. The process of hunger is just as old as your involuntary process it is to breathe evolutionary speaking. Eventually you give in to hunger, just as you did in taking a breath.  sources:  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/nejm198601233140401  https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/j.1600-0447.1993.tb05363.x  https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/0800548  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJM199005243222102  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC1835397\/  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC2570383\/","human_ref_B":"So I think we can all agree that being morbidly obese is an unhealthy thing (it's kind of in the name) and that those who are should attempt to change. However, is shame conducive to change? I personally don't know either way, and I can definitely see certain people being so ashamed of themselves that they want to change, but what if shame hinders the weight loss journey? Not to mention it undoubtedly makes people more depressed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2875.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
+{"post_id":"arb9yn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: A certain amount of body positivity is good, but people should be ashamed to be morbidly obese. People with a few extra pounds should not be shamed into losing weight and nobody should be expected to be stick thinny, insta-thick or ripped. Not everyone has the same build (and that's good) and healthy bodies don't all look the same. Not everyone has the time to have a perfect body.  However, if you're taking up two seats on an airplane, it's time for a change and we shouldn't act like 40+% body-fat is normal or \"beautiful\".   There are certainly some people with disorders who cannot help it, but that's not who I'm talking about. We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves. Basically I'm pro body-positivity, but there's a point where it becomes harmful.","c_root_id_A":"egn21fz","c_root_id_B":"egmt0je","created_at_utc_A":1550373969,"created_at_utc_B":1550366011,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves.   That is a claim that current science doesn't support. Despite what people on the internet say.  The heritability of bodyweight has been well-known for a couple of decades now thanks to identical twin and adoption studies.  It around 75 percent, while height is 95 percent.  So if you are born to fat parents, you're gonna be fat.  If you are born to thin parents, you are going to be thin.  If you put the fat parent's baby with the thin family, they don't grow up to be thin like the adoptive parents, they grow up to be fat like the biological parents. This has been measured and quantified for decades now.  So why yes, the genetics haven't changed, but that doesn't mean our willpower has changed either.  Yet clearly our environment of a mcdonalds on every corner has changed. We haven't been working the fields for 10 hour days anymore.  So saying obesity is a choice is not evaluating the whole picture fairly.  Hunger is a very powerful and millions of years evolved pressure to conserve fat for periods of famine. So saying it can be \"controlled\" or \"ignored\" is easy for someone to say who doesn't have the same level of hunger.  The \"choice\" of obesity isn't as cut and dried as much as amateur thermodynamics supporters say. While the statement my be true, doesn't include the causation for \"calories in\" being in someone's control as we would like to believe it is. Our body can make choices for us. Hold your breathe. Go on. You'll breathe eventually. It is physically impossible to hold your breath until you pass out. Your body made you. So you made the choice not to breathe, but eventually your body makes you. The process of hunger is just as old as your involuntary process it is to breathe evolutionary speaking. Eventually you give in to hunger, just as you did in taking a breath.  sources:  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/nejm198601233140401  https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/j.1600-0447.1993.tb05363.x  https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/0800548  https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJM199005243222102  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC1835397\/  https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC2570383\/","human_ref_B":"I'm addicted to the sub r\/progresspics but I'm not overweight. I'm a person that's always trying, though. Not to be skinny but to be strong\/look good. I find it really inspiring when I see people who went from 3-400 lbs to a normal BMI. You think about how hard it was for them and how lucky you are to not know those types of struggles, like not being able to walk very far.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7958.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
+{"post_id":"arb9yn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: A certain amount of body positivity is good, but people should be ashamed to be morbidly obese. People with a few extra pounds should not be shamed into losing weight and nobody should be expected to be stick thinny, insta-thick or ripped. Not everyone has the same build (and that's good) and healthy bodies don't all look the same. Not everyone has the time to have a perfect body.  However, if you're taking up two seats on an airplane, it's time for a change and we shouldn't act like 40+% body-fat is normal or \"beautiful\".   There are certainly some people with disorders who cannot help it, but that's not who I'm talking about. We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves. Basically I'm pro body-positivity, but there's a point where it becomes harmful.","c_root_id_A":"egmnyk2","c_root_id_B":"egmdji2","created_at_utc_A":1550361449,"created_at_utc_B":1550352542,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If you hate your body, why take care of it? We care for things we love. Even a body with health issues (whatever it looks like) is lovable. Think about how hard your body works to keep you alive, even if mentally you've given up. If you love your body, as is, with its \"imperfections\", you're more likely to nurture it with healthy food, exercise, showering regularly, brushing teeth, etc. Focusing on how healthy you think a person looks vs helping someone who wants to develop healthier habits makes little sense. After all, someone can be much smaller and have poor health. Most people have poor diets. Maybe instead we should shame the companies who poison our food, market plastic as food, and create food deserts.  Personal","human_ref_B":"Positive reinforcement is always the better answer. Shame impacts  people's self esteem, and poor self esteem increases the likelihood of self destructive behaviours. Better to encourage people to do healthy things than to try and discourage them from doing unhealthy things.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8907.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"arb9yn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: A certain amount of body positivity is good, but people should be ashamed to be morbidly obese. People with a few extra pounds should not be shamed into losing weight and nobody should be expected to be stick thinny, insta-thick or ripped. Not everyone has the same build (and that's good) and healthy bodies don't all look the same. Not everyone has the time to have a perfect body.  However, if you're taking up two seats on an airplane, it's time for a change and we shouldn't act like 40+% body-fat is normal or \"beautiful\".   There are certainly some people with disorders who cannot help it, but that's not who I'm talking about. We shouldn't coddle extremely obese people who brought this on themselves. Basically I'm pro body-positivity, but there's a point where it becomes harmful.","c_root_id_A":"egm4dfj","c_root_id_B":"egmnyk2","created_at_utc_A":1550345090,"created_at_utc_B":1550361449,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Well I don\u2019t think you should judge them either way. I don\u2019t know what the issues like plane seats and maybe they need to pay for two seats but we shouldn\u2019t tell them to lose weight much or say they\u2019re too fat. Just let them be let them change if they want to certainly no need to be make them feel bad.","human_ref_B":"If you hate your body, why take care of it? We care for things we love. Even a body with health issues (whatever it looks like) is lovable. Think about how hard your body works to keep you alive, even if mentally you've given up. If you love your body, as is, with its \"imperfections\", you're more likely to nurture it with healthy food, exercise, showering regularly, brushing teeth, etc. Focusing on how healthy you think a person looks vs helping someone who wants to develop healthier habits makes little sense. After all, someone can be much smaller and have poor health. Most people have poor diets. Maybe instead we should shame the companies who poison our food, market plastic as food, and create food deserts.  Personal","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16359.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2eunde","c_root_id_B":"i2ev2sh","created_at_utc_A":1648452468,"created_at_utc_B":1648452830,"score_A":19,"score_B":157,"human_ref_A":"\u201croasting nominated celebrities\u201d jada wasn\u2019t nominated so even by your own logic chris was wrong. will was nominated and the dig at jada wasn\u2019t a dig at will at all - it was an insult to jada that had nothing to do with will meaning it wasn\u2019t a roast of a nominated celebrity at all.","human_ref_B":"Are you referring to the same Academy of Motion Pictures who awarded the 2002 Best Picture to a film directed by a man who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, then fled to Europe to escape serving time?   If so, I don\u2019t think a little slap is going to sway them. I do believe that Smith won the award fair and square, and should keep the Oscar. I also think he should be removed from contention for any future awards and permanently banned from attending the ceremony.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":362.0,"score_ratio":8.2631578947}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2etran","c_root_id_B":"i2ev2sh","created_at_utc_A":1648451729,"created_at_utc_B":1648452830,"score_A":11,"score_B":157,"human_ref_A":"Have you considered that maybe whole scene was staged in order to increase views?","human_ref_B":"Are you referring to the same Academy of Motion Pictures who awarded the 2002 Best Picture to a film directed by a man who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, then fled to Europe to escape serving time?   If so, I don\u2019t think a little slap is going to sway them. I do believe that Smith won the award fair and square, and should keep the Oscar. I also think he should be removed from contention for any future awards and permanently banned from attending the ceremony.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1101.0,"score_ratio":14.2727272727}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2ev2sh","c_root_id_B":"i2etht3","created_at_utc_A":1648452830,"created_at_utc_B":1648451508,"score_A":157,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Are you referring to the same Academy of Motion Pictures who awarded the 2002 Best Picture to a film directed by a man who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, then fled to Europe to escape serving time?   If so, I don\u2019t think a little slap is going to sway them. I do believe that Smith won the award fair and square, and should keep the Oscar. I also think he should be removed from contention for any future awards and permanently banned from attending the ceremony.","human_ref_B":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1322.0,"score_ratio":39.25}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2evilv","c_root_id_B":"i2f07pt","created_at_utc_A":1648453206,"created_at_utc_B":1648457403,"score_A":28,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"What I think is the worst about it, is that it sets a new bar for dealing with \u2018opinions\u2019 you do not like: just slap whoever is saying it.   Chris Rock is a comedian and his job is to tell jokes. And indeed roasting the guests at these ceremonies has become somewhat of a tradition. Now jokes can be in bad taste, or unfunny. But slapping someone for it mostly shows you have a very fragile ego.   I dunno if Smith\u2019s oscar should be taken away, he is a movie and musical giant. And I don\u2019t think this isolated moment should define his entire life. At the same time tho, he should apologise and make an effort to amend his mistake.","human_ref_B":">Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack another famous man. I didn't see any helpless victim.  I don't know what the Oscars will do to Will, if anything. But, speaking as a rude asshole who often runs his mouth, I don't ever begrudge someone for spitting back at me. Personally, if I made fun of someone's disability, and their partner got up and popped me, once the birdies stopped circling my head I'd be like, 'Yeah, I earned that.'","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4197.0,"score_ratio":2.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2ewtmh","c_root_id_B":"i2f07pt","created_at_utc_A":1648454342,"created_at_utc_B":1648457403,"score_A":19,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":">and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  That was the presentation. He got the votes to win the award long before the show, and thus long before the incident. Why should they take away an award for a film he won that had nothing to do with the incident, and was clearly something the Academy didn't foresee?  And if they DID foresee it, that means it was staged. So why would they punish Smith for doing what he was told to do?","human_ref_B":">Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack another famous man. I didn't see any helpless victim.  I don't know what the Oscars will do to Will, if anything. But, speaking as a rude asshole who often runs his mouth, I don't ever begrudge someone for spitting back at me. Personally, if I made fun of someone's disability, and their partner got up and popped me, once the birdies stopped circling my head I'd be like, 'Yeah, I earned that.'","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3061.0,"score_ratio":3.5789473684}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2f07pt","c_root_id_B":"i2eunde","created_at_utc_A":1648457403,"created_at_utc_B":1648452468,"score_A":68,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":">Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack another famous man. I didn't see any helpless victim.  I don't know what the Oscars will do to Will, if anything. But, speaking as a rude asshole who often runs his mouth, I don't ever begrudge someone for spitting back at me. Personally, if I made fun of someone's disability, and their partner got up and popped me, once the birdies stopped circling my head I'd be like, 'Yeah, I earned that.'","human_ref_B":"\u201croasting nominated celebrities\u201d jada wasn\u2019t nominated so even by your own logic chris was wrong. will was nominated and the dig at jada wasn\u2019t a dig at will at all - it was an insult to jada that had nothing to do with will meaning it wasn\u2019t a roast of a nominated celebrity at all.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4935.0,"score_ratio":3.5789473684}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2f07pt","c_root_id_B":"i2etran","created_at_utc_A":1648457403,"created_at_utc_B":1648451729,"score_A":68,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack another famous man. I didn't see any helpless victim.  I don't know what the Oscars will do to Will, if anything. But, speaking as a rude asshole who often runs his mouth, I don't ever begrudge someone for spitting back at me. Personally, if I made fun of someone's disability, and their partner got up and popped me, once the birdies stopped circling my head I'd be like, 'Yeah, I earned that.'","human_ref_B":"Have you considered that maybe whole scene was staged in order to increase views?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5674.0,"score_ratio":6.1818181818}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2evu94","c_root_id_B":"i2f07pt","created_at_utc_A":1648453486,"created_at_utc_B":1648457403,"score_A":7,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"It is absurd to argue that Chris Rock is anything other than absolutely elated by what transpired. Yeah slapping people is bad or whatever but this is absolutely a positive for his publicity and his career. In the marketplace of \"edgy comedians who push boundaries\" what could be possibly better than being slapped on live television for your edgy comedy and boundary pushing","human_ref_B":">Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack another famous man. I didn't see any helpless victim.  I don't know what the Oscars will do to Will, if anything. But, speaking as a rude asshole who often runs his mouth, I don't ever begrudge someone for spitting back at me. Personally, if I made fun of someone's disability, and their partner got up and popped me, once the birdies stopped circling my head I'd be like, 'Yeah, I earned that.'","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3917.0,"score_ratio":9.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2f07pt","c_root_id_B":"i2exglj","created_at_utc_A":1648457403,"created_at_utc_B":1648454902,"score_A":68,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":">Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack another famous man. I didn't see any helpless victim.  I don't know what the Oscars will do to Will, if anything. But, speaking as a rude asshole who often runs his mouth, I don't ever begrudge someone for spitting back at me. Personally, if I made fun of someone's disability, and their partner got up and popped me, once the birdies stopped circling my head I'd be like, 'Yeah, I earned that.'","human_ref_B":"I think that's taking it a little too far. I hate to get political but we're getting into cancel culture territory by revoking an Oscar he earned just because he did something we didn't like. I think he fked up but let's not toss him to the wolves. He had a televised man-baby moment at the Oscars. He attacked Chris Rock but it was minor and it's up to Chris how he wants to handle it. I'm sure it's not his first rodeo and he's just gonna let it slide.    Stuff happens and people lose their shit sometimes. We all make mistakes and for all we know Will and Jada are going through a really rough time. Or maybe Will just freaked out because he had a bruised ego. Either way, I think the issue isn't major and any pushback needs to be reasonable.    I hate defending him but I mentioned it in another post. If Chris had done this at a McDonald's then a lot more people would be sympathetic. I get it, don't insult a man's lady. Acting like this at a public event is a giant no-no, especially considering this wasn't a personal attack. So let's not overreact. It was a public freak-out at worst. He made an ass of himself and he has to make his peace with that. No real harm done except to his credibility. No need to castrate the man.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2501.0,"score_ratio":7.5555555556}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2etht3","c_root_id_B":"i2f07pt","created_at_utc_A":1648451508,"created_at_utc_B":1648457403,"score_A":4,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","human_ref_B":">Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack another famous man. I didn't see any helpless victim.  I don't know what the Oscars will do to Will, if anything. But, speaking as a rude asshole who often runs his mouth, I don't ever begrudge someone for spitting back at me. Personally, if I made fun of someone's disability, and their partner got up and popped me, once the birdies stopped circling my head I'd be like, 'Yeah, I earned that.'","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5895.0,"score_ratio":17.0}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2eunde","c_root_id_B":"i2evilv","created_at_utc_A":1648452468,"created_at_utc_B":1648453206,"score_A":19,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"\u201croasting nominated celebrities\u201d jada wasn\u2019t nominated so even by your own logic chris was wrong. will was nominated and the dig at jada wasn\u2019t a dig at will at all - it was an insult to jada that had nothing to do with will meaning it wasn\u2019t a roast of a nominated celebrity at all.","human_ref_B":"What I think is the worst about it, is that it sets a new bar for dealing with \u2018opinions\u2019 you do not like: just slap whoever is saying it.   Chris Rock is a comedian and his job is to tell jokes. And indeed roasting the guests at these ceremonies has become somewhat of a tradition. Now jokes can be in bad taste, or unfunny. But slapping someone for it mostly shows you have a very fragile ego.   I dunno if Smith\u2019s oscar should be taken away, he is a movie and musical giant. And I don\u2019t think this isolated moment should define his entire life. At the same time tho, he should apologise and make an effort to amend his mistake.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":738.0,"score_ratio":1.4736842105}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2evilv","c_root_id_B":"i2etran","created_at_utc_A":1648453206,"created_at_utc_B":1648451729,"score_A":28,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"What I think is the worst about it, is that it sets a new bar for dealing with \u2018opinions\u2019 you do not like: just slap whoever is saying it.   Chris Rock is a comedian and his job is to tell jokes. And indeed roasting the guests at these ceremonies has become somewhat of a tradition. Now jokes can be in bad taste, or unfunny. But slapping someone for it mostly shows you have a very fragile ego.   I dunno if Smith\u2019s oscar should be taken away, he is a movie and musical giant. And I don\u2019t think this isolated moment should define his entire life. At the same time tho, he should apologise and make an effort to amend his mistake.","human_ref_B":"Have you considered that maybe whole scene was staged in order to increase views?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1477.0,"score_ratio":2.5454545455}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2evilv","c_root_id_B":"i2etht3","created_at_utc_A":1648453206,"created_at_utc_B":1648451508,"score_A":28,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"What I think is the worst about it, is that it sets a new bar for dealing with \u2018opinions\u2019 you do not like: just slap whoever is saying it.   Chris Rock is a comedian and his job is to tell jokes. And indeed roasting the guests at these ceremonies has become somewhat of a tradition. Now jokes can be in bad taste, or unfunny. But slapping someone for it mostly shows you have a very fragile ego.   I dunno if Smith\u2019s oscar should be taken away, he is a movie and musical giant. And I don\u2019t think this isolated moment should define his entire life. At the same time tho, he should apologise and make an effort to amend his mistake.","human_ref_B":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1698.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2ffimg","c_root_id_B":"i2ftwfw","created_at_utc_A":1648469325,"created_at_utc_B":1648476750,"score_A":15,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Either Will Smith gave the best performance of the year or he didn't. If they believe he did but they revoke it for reasons unrelated to his acting in King Richard, the award becomes a lie. They could ban him from attending any future Oscars, but changing the award to punish him devalues the award.","human_ref_B":"Taking a shot at a mans wife is a gamble. Taking a shot at a womans appearance, especially visible symptoms of genetic disease is crass but really taking a gamble. Doing this to a couple who have marital issues is really low, and doing it in front of all their peers is reprehensible.  Roasting doesn\u2019t happen out of the blue, it is agreed to ahead of time and the roasters vetted, it\u2019s not on live TV. This was not a roast it was an insult. Not saying the assault is ok, but it\u2019s certainly not surprising.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7425.0,"score_ratio":1.2666666667}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2ftwfw","c_root_id_B":"i2etran","created_at_utc_A":1648476750,"created_at_utc_B":1648451729,"score_A":19,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Taking a shot at a mans wife is a gamble. Taking a shot at a womans appearance, especially visible symptoms of genetic disease is crass but really taking a gamble. Doing this to a couple who have marital issues is really low, and doing it in front of all their peers is reprehensible.  Roasting doesn\u2019t happen out of the blue, it is agreed to ahead of time and the roasters vetted, it\u2019s not on live TV. This was not a roast it was an insult. Not saying the assault is ok, but it\u2019s certainly not surprising.","human_ref_B":"Have you considered that maybe whole scene was staged in order to increase views?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25021.0,"score_ratio":1.7272727273}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2f0yur","c_root_id_B":"i2ftwfw","created_at_utc_A":1648458094,"created_at_utc_B":1648476750,"score_A":8,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Shouldn't it be the judiciary system that punishes if someone does sth that's illegal?","human_ref_B":"Taking a shot at a mans wife is a gamble. Taking a shot at a womans appearance, especially visible symptoms of genetic disease is crass but really taking a gamble. Doing this to a couple who have marital issues is really low, and doing it in front of all their peers is reprehensible.  Roasting doesn\u2019t happen out of the blue, it is agreed to ahead of time and the roasters vetted, it\u2019s not on live TV. This was not a roast it was an insult. Not saying the assault is ok, but it\u2019s certainly not surprising.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18656.0,"score_ratio":2.375}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2evu94","c_root_id_B":"i2ftwfw","created_at_utc_A":1648453486,"created_at_utc_B":1648476750,"score_A":7,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"It is absurd to argue that Chris Rock is anything other than absolutely elated by what transpired. Yeah slapping people is bad or whatever but this is absolutely a positive for his publicity and his career. In the marketplace of \"edgy comedians who push boundaries\" what could be possibly better than being slapped on live television for your edgy comedy and boundary pushing","human_ref_B":"Taking a shot at a mans wife is a gamble. Taking a shot at a womans appearance, especially visible symptoms of genetic disease is crass but really taking a gamble. Doing this to a couple who have marital issues is really low, and doing it in front of all their peers is reprehensible.  Roasting doesn\u2019t happen out of the blue, it is agreed to ahead of time and the roasters vetted, it\u2019s not on live TV. This was not a roast it was an insult. Not saying the assault is ok, but it\u2019s certainly not surprising.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23264.0,"score_ratio":2.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2ftwfw","c_root_id_B":"i2exglj","created_at_utc_A":1648476750,"created_at_utc_B":1648454902,"score_A":19,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Taking a shot at a mans wife is a gamble. Taking a shot at a womans appearance, especially visible symptoms of genetic disease is crass but really taking a gamble. Doing this to a couple who have marital issues is really low, and doing it in front of all their peers is reprehensible.  Roasting doesn\u2019t happen out of the blue, it is agreed to ahead of time and the roasters vetted, it\u2019s not on live TV. This was not a roast it was an insult. Not saying the assault is ok, but it\u2019s certainly not surprising.","human_ref_B":"I think that's taking it a little too far. I hate to get political but we're getting into cancel culture territory by revoking an Oscar he earned just because he did something we didn't like. I think he fked up but let's not toss him to the wolves. He had a televised man-baby moment at the Oscars. He attacked Chris Rock but it was minor and it's up to Chris how he wants to handle it. I'm sure it's not his first rodeo and he's just gonna let it slide.    Stuff happens and people lose their shit sometimes. We all make mistakes and for all we know Will and Jada are going through a really rough time. Or maybe Will just freaked out because he had a bruised ego. Either way, I think the issue isn't major and any pushback needs to be reasonable.    I hate defending him but I mentioned it in another post. If Chris had done this at a McDonald's then a lot more people would be sympathetic. I get it, don't insult a man's lady. Acting like this at a public event is a giant no-no, especially considering this wasn't a personal attack. So let's not overreact. It was a public freak-out at worst. He made an ass of himself and he has to make his peace with that. No real harm done except to his credibility. No need to castrate the man.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21848.0,"score_ratio":2.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2etht3","c_root_id_B":"i2ftwfw","created_at_utc_A":1648451508,"created_at_utc_B":1648476750,"score_A":4,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","human_ref_B":"Taking a shot at a mans wife is a gamble. Taking a shot at a womans appearance, especially visible symptoms of genetic disease is crass but really taking a gamble. Doing this to a couple who have marital issues is really low, and doing it in front of all their peers is reprehensible.  Roasting doesn\u2019t happen out of the blue, it is agreed to ahead of time and the roasters vetted, it\u2019s not on live TV. This was not a roast it was an insult. Not saying the assault is ok, but it\u2019s certainly not surprising.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25242.0,"score_ratio":4.75}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2etran","c_root_id_B":"i2ewtmh","created_at_utc_A":1648451729,"created_at_utc_B":1648454342,"score_A":11,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Have you considered that maybe whole scene was staged in order to increase views?","human_ref_B":">and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  That was the presentation. He got the votes to win the award long before the show, and thus long before the incident. Why should they take away an award for a film he won that had nothing to do with the incident, and was clearly something the Academy didn't foresee?  And if they DID foresee it, that means it was staged. So why would they punish Smith for doing what he was told to do?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2613.0,"score_ratio":1.7272727273}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2ewtmh","c_root_id_B":"i2evu94","created_at_utc_A":1648454342,"created_at_utc_B":1648453486,"score_A":19,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  That was the presentation. He got the votes to win the award long before the show, and thus long before the incident. Why should they take away an award for a film he won that had nothing to do with the incident, and was clearly something the Academy didn't foresee?  And if they DID foresee it, that means it was staged. So why would they punish Smith for doing what he was told to do?","human_ref_B":"It is absurd to argue that Chris Rock is anything other than absolutely elated by what transpired. Yeah slapping people is bad or whatever but this is absolutely a positive for his publicity and his career. In the marketplace of \"edgy comedians who push boundaries\" what could be possibly better than being slapped on live television for your edgy comedy and boundary pushing","labels":1,"seconds_difference":856.0,"score_ratio":2.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2etht3","c_root_id_B":"i2ewtmh","created_at_utc_A":1648451508,"created_at_utc_B":1648454342,"score_A":4,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","human_ref_B":">and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  That was the presentation. He got the votes to win the award long before the show, and thus long before the incident. Why should they take away an award for a film he won that had nothing to do with the incident, and was clearly something the Academy didn't foresee?  And if they DID foresee it, that means it was staged. So why would they punish Smith for doing what he was told to do?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2834.0,"score_ratio":4.75}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2etran","c_root_id_B":"i2eunde","created_at_utc_A":1648451729,"created_at_utc_B":1648452468,"score_A":11,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Have you considered that maybe whole scene was staged in order to increase views?","human_ref_B":"\u201croasting nominated celebrities\u201d jada wasn\u2019t nominated so even by your own logic chris was wrong. will was nominated and the dig at jada wasn\u2019t a dig at will at all - it was an insult to jada that had nothing to do with will meaning it wasn\u2019t a roast of a nominated celebrity at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":739.0,"score_ratio":1.7272727273}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2etht3","c_root_id_B":"i2eunde","created_at_utc_A":1648451508,"created_at_utc_B":1648452468,"score_A":4,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","human_ref_B":"\u201croasting nominated celebrities\u201d jada wasn\u2019t nominated so even by your own logic chris was wrong. will was nominated and the dig at jada wasn\u2019t a dig at will at all - it was an insult to jada that had nothing to do with will meaning it wasn\u2019t a roast of a nominated celebrity at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":960.0,"score_ratio":4.75}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2etran","c_root_id_B":"i2ffimg","created_at_utc_A":1648451729,"created_at_utc_B":1648469325,"score_A":11,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Have you considered that maybe whole scene was staged in order to increase views?","human_ref_B":"Either Will Smith gave the best performance of the year or he didn't. If they believe he did but they revoke it for reasons unrelated to his acting in King Richard, the award becomes a lie. They could ban him from attending any future Oscars, but changing the award to punish him devalues the award.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17596.0,"score_ratio":1.3636363636}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2f0yur","c_root_id_B":"i2ffimg","created_at_utc_A":1648458094,"created_at_utc_B":1648469325,"score_A":8,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Shouldn't it be the judiciary system that punishes if someone does sth that's illegal?","human_ref_B":"Either Will Smith gave the best performance of the year or he didn't. If they believe he did but they revoke it for reasons unrelated to his acting in King Richard, the award becomes a lie. They could ban him from attending any future Oscars, but changing the award to punish him devalues the award.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11231.0,"score_ratio":1.875}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2ffimg","c_root_id_B":"i2evu94","created_at_utc_A":1648469325,"created_at_utc_B":1648453486,"score_A":15,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Either Will Smith gave the best performance of the year or he didn't. If they believe he did but they revoke it for reasons unrelated to his acting in King Richard, the award becomes a lie. They could ban him from attending any future Oscars, but changing the award to punish him devalues the award.","human_ref_B":"It is absurd to argue that Chris Rock is anything other than absolutely elated by what transpired. Yeah slapping people is bad or whatever but this is absolutely a positive for his publicity and his career. In the marketplace of \"edgy comedians who push boundaries\" what could be possibly better than being slapped on live television for your edgy comedy and boundary pushing","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15839.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2exglj","c_root_id_B":"i2ffimg","created_at_utc_A":1648454902,"created_at_utc_B":1648469325,"score_A":9,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I think that's taking it a little too far. I hate to get political but we're getting into cancel culture territory by revoking an Oscar he earned just because he did something we didn't like. I think he fked up but let's not toss him to the wolves. He had a televised man-baby moment at the Oscars. He attacked Chris Rock but it was minor and it's up to Chris how he wants to handle it. I'm sure it's not his first rodeo and he's just gonna let it slide.    Stuff happens and people lose their shit sometimes. We all make mistakes and for all we know Will and Jada are going through a really rough time. Or maybe Will just freaked out because he had a bruised ego. Either way, I think the issue isn't major and any pushback needs to be reasonable.    I hate defending him but I mentioned it in another post. If Chris had done this at a McDonald's then a lot more people would be sympathetic. I get it, don't insult a man's lady. Acting like this at a public event is a giant no-no, especially considering this wasn't a personal attack. So let's not overreact. It was a public freak-out at worst. He made an ass of himself and he has to make his peace with that. No real harm done except to his credibility. No need to castrate the man.","human_ref_B":"Either Will Smith gave the best performance of the year or he didn't. If they believe he did but they revoke it for reasons unrelated to his acting in King Richard, the award becomes a lie. They could ban him from attending any future Oscars, but changing the award to punish him devalues the award.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14423.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2etht3","c_root_id_B":"i2ffimg","created_at_utc_A":1648451508,"created_at_utc_B":1648469325,"score_A":4,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","human_ref_B":"Either Will Smith gave the best performance of the year or he didn't. If they believe he did but they revoke it for reasons unrelated to his acting in King Richard, the award becomes a lie. They could ban him from attending any future Oscars, but changing the award to punish him devalues the award.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17817.0,"score_ratio":3.75}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2etht3","c_root_id_B":"i2etran","created_at_utc_A":1648451508,"created_at_utc_B":1648451729,"score_A":4,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","human_ref_B":"Have you considered that maybe whole scene was staged in order to increase views?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":221.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2f0yur","c_root_id_B":"i2evu94","created_at_utc_A":1648458094,"created_at_utc_B":1648453486,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Shouldn't it be the judiciary system that punishes if someone does sth that's illegal?","human_ref_B":"It is absurd to argue that Chris Rock is anything other than absolutely elated by what transpired. Yeah slapping people is bad or whatever but this is absolutely a positive for his publicity and his career. In the marketplace of \"edgy comedians who push boundaries\" what could be possibly better than being slapped on live television for your edgy comedy and boundary pushing","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4608.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2g662a","c_root_id_B":"i2f0yur","created_at_utc_A":1648481935,"created_at_utc_B":1648458094,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I just can't get onboard with taking his Oscar. He earned that regardless of his actions last night. Should he face the consequences of his actions.. Yes. But to take away something unrelated as punishment just doesn't seem to fit the crime. It's not justice. Justice would be him facing the same penalty anyone else would've.","human_ref_B":"Shouldn't it be the judiciary system that punishes if someone does sth that's illegal?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23841.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2f0yur","c_root_id_B":"i2etht3","created_at_utc_A":1648458094,"created_at_utc_B":1648451508,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Shouldn't it be the judiciary system that punishes if someone does sth that's illegal?","human_ref_B":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6586.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2evu94","c_root_id_B":"i2exglj","created_at_utc_A":1648453486,"created_at_utc_B":1648454902,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"It is absurd to argue that Chris Rock is anything other than absolutely elated by what transpired. Yeah slapping people is bad or whatever but this is absolutely a positive for his publicity and his career. In the marketplace of \"edgy comedians who push boundaries\" what could be possibly better than being slapped on live television for your edgy comedy and boundary pushing","human_ref_B":"I think that's taking it a little too far. I hate to get political but we're getting into cancel culture territory by revoking an Oscar he earned just because he did something we didn't like. I think he fked up but let's not toss him to the wolves. He had a televised man-baby moment at the Oscars. He attacked Chris Rock but it was minor and it's up to Chris how he wants to handle it. I'm sure it's not his first rodeo and he's just gonna let it slide.    Stuff happens and people lose their shit sometimes. We all make mistakes and for all we know Will and Jada are going through a really rough time. Or maybe Will just freaked out because he had a bruised ego. Either way, I think the issue isn't major and any pushback needs to be reasonable.    I hate defending him but I mentioned it in another post. If Chris had done this at a McDonald's then a lot more people would be sympathetic. I get it, don't insult a man's lady. Acting like this at a public event is a giant no-no, especially considering this wasn't a personal attack. So let's not overreact. It was a public freak-out at worst. He made an ass of himself and he has to make his peace with that. No real harm done except to his credibility. No need to castrate the man.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1416.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2evu94","c_root_id_B":"i2g662a","created_at_utc_A":1648453486,"created_at_utc_B":1648481935,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"It is absurd to argue that Chris Rock is anything other than absolutely elated by what transpired. Yeah slapping people is bad or whatever but this is absolutely a positive for his publicity and his career. In the marketplace of \"edgy comedians who push boundaries\" what could be possibly better than being slapped on live television for your edgy comedy and boundary pushing","human_ref_B":"I just can't get onboard with taking his Oscar. He earned that regardless of his actions last night. Should he face the consequences of his actions.. Yes. But to take away something unrelated as punishment just doesn't seem to fit the crime. It's not justice. Justice would be him facing the same penalty anyone else would've.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28449.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2evu94","c_root_id_B":"i2etht3","created_at_utc_A":1648453486,"created_at_utc_B":1648451508,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It is absurd to argue that Chris Rock is anything other than absolutely elated by what transpired. Yeah slapping people is bad or whatever but this is absolutely a positive for his publicity and his career. In the marketplace of \"edgy comedians who push boundaries\" what could be possibly better than being slapped on live television for your edgy comedy and boundary pushing","human_ref_B":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1978.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2exglj","c_root_id_B":"i2etht3","created_at_utc_A":1648454902,"created_at_utc_B":1648451508,"score_A":9,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think that's taking it a little too far. I hate to get political but we're getting into cancel culture territory by revoking an Oscar he earned just because he did something we didn't like. I think he fked up but let's not toss him to the wolves. He had a televised man-baby moment at the Oscars. He attacked Chris Rock but it was minor and it's up to Chris how he wants to handle it. I'm sure it's not his first rodeo and he's just gonna let it slide.    Stuff happens and people lose their shit sometimes. We all make mistakes and for all we know Will and Jada are going through a really rough time. Or maybe Will just freaked out because he had a bruised ego. Either way, I think the issue isn't major and any pushback needs to be reasonable.    I hate defending him but I mentioned it in another post. If Chris had done this at a McDonald's then a lot more people would be sympathetic. I get it, don't insult a man's lady. Acting like this at a public event is a giant no-no, especially considering this wasn't a personal attack. So let's not overreact. It was a public freak-out at worst. He made an ass of himself and he has to make his peace with that. No real harm done except to his credibility. No need to castrate the man.","human_ref_B":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3394.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2g662a","c_root_id_B":"i2etht3","created_at_utc_A":1648481935,"created_at_utc_B":1648451508,"score_A":9,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I just can't get onboard with taking his Oscar. He earned that regardless of his actions last night. Should he face the consequences of his actions.. Yes. But to take away something unrelated as punishment just doesn't seem to fit the crime. It's not justice. Justice would be him facing the same penalty anyone else would've.","human_ref_B":"Yeah right. Shit like that doesn\u2019t happen to \u201cblack culture icons.\u201d I can see the headlines now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30427.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2fzf8n","c_root_id_B":"i2g662a","created_at_utc_A":1648479135,"created_at_utc_B":1648481935,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":">Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new  Jada was not up for a nomination, was she? (I genuinely don't know, don't follow it).   Does just being there really mean that you're fair game?","human_ref_B":"I just can't get onboard with taking his Oscar. He earned that regardless of his actions last night. Should he face the consequences of his actions.. Yes. But to take away something unrelated as punishment just doesn't seem to fit the crime. It's not justice. Justice would be him facing the same penalty anyone else would've.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2800.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"tq3lt1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring.  So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester.  Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later.  Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated.  Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up.  Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.","c_root_id_A":"i2g0crd","c_root_id_B":"i2g662a","created_at_utc_A":1648479528,"created_at_utc_B":1648481935,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"\"Poor Chris Rock... what was he supposed to do?\"  He could have seen the harm that his joke caused (it was written all over her face) and instead of trying to downplay it, show some humility and say, \"Hey, I'm sorry, that one actually was too far. My bad.\"","human_ref_B":"I just can't get onboard with taking his Oscar. He earned that regardless of his actions last night. Should he face the consequences of his actions.. Yes. But to take away something unrelated as punishment just doesn't seem to fit the crime. It's not justice. Justice would be him facing the same penalty anyone else would've.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2407.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"6ieasf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Child Protective Services in the US should treat the willful failure to vaccinate your children the same way it treats a failure to keep your home in a habitable condition--the kids should be placed with relatives until the situation is resolved. I worked with children during an internship in the field of social services, and I have seen many parents lose their kids because their homes are so filthy the children's health is at risk. Yet we don't do the same when we know the parent is refusing to vaccinate their children for non-medical or non-financial reasons. Taking kids away from their parents is an extreme measure, so I understand that the courts won't do so lightly. I just don't see how one is worse than the other.  It would be interesting to know your arguments for and against getting CPS involved for failure to vaccinate. Is there case law where one parent who shares custody has asked the courts to order the other parent to allow a child to get vaccinated? Do you think the \"religious\" excuse is the true barrier? Or is this purely socioeconomic discrimination by the government because it tends to be well off parents who chose not to vaccinate?","c_root_id_A":"dj5pl6i","c_root_id_B":"dj5msyi","created_at_utc_A":1497976414,"created_at_utc_B":1497973511,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This would be devastating because it would fuel the distrust in the system that is a large part of what drives people to these thought processes in the first place.  I follow a bunch of science groups, and a few months ago I remember someone posting a video of a mother explaining why she wasn't vaccinating her kids (i wish I could find it but I can't so far). Immediately the post was filled with \"enlightened\" people mocking, belittling her, and saying she should lose her children. When I watched the video, though, the mothers reason was understandable- the doctor was giving the child way too many vaccines at once and not spacing them out as recommended practice, and shamed the mother when she asked about it.   We need to ask ourselves: how can we make these well-intended parents trust the medical system? Blackmailing them (which your proposal will come off as) won't be effective.   Also, I dated someone who was raised un-vacinated and anti-vax in general. He was indigenous, and his family did not want to be forced by the government to do anything, especially with the gov's history in their community of medical experimentation, forced sterilization and residential schooling. There are communities with extremely legitimate fears of the western medical system- and we need to recognize that.","human_ref_B":"As far as I know, CPS only intervenes when there is an immediate threat to the child's health and well-being.  In cases where children are not vaccinated, the actual risk to the child is quite low. To not be vaccinated is not an immediate threat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2903.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf11zt2","c_root_id_B":"hf04mfi","created_at_utc_A":1633127527,"created_at_utc_B":1633112199,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.  People who advocate animal ethics consider both cases to be unethical.   The \"as long as you eat the meat\" thing is generally a method of placating cognitive dissonance surrounding the killing of animals.   People don't often view wasting burgers as an animal ethics thing because they do everything they can to not make the connection between their food and an animal being killed.   Based on what you said, you might make a claim that it's necessary to kill the animals to protect your crops, I'm just explaining why I think the contradiction exists.   Honestly I'm a little baffled that your response to the contradiction is that both things are okay. Why isn't your view that wasting burgers is related to animal ethics?","human_ref_B":"> I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I think the act is similar, but the result and intention is i different.  A waste of resources is a waste of resources.  However buying something at a store with the INTENT of never consuming it, is different than simply forgetting, or not properly utilizing it.  Further, in the practicality aspect. A whole animal is a hell of a lot more than a few burgers.  As an analogy: Is it just as unethical to go subconsciously 5MPH over the speed limit as it is to intentionally drag race 50MPH over the speed limit?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15328.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf0runk","c_root_id_B":"hf11zt2","created_at_utc_A":1633122618,"created_at_utc_B":1633127527,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense.  Well, perhaps it does. There are plenty of beliefs running through society that haven't been critically examined by most people. That we have failed to take note of this issue, where the wastefulness is a little less on-the-nose (the people in question are eating *some* of the animal, at least), does not mean that other instances of wastefulness should also be treated as non-issues.","human_ref_B":">Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.  People who advocate animal ethics consider both cases to be unethical.   The \"as long as you eat the meat\" thing is generally a method of placating cognitive dissonance surrounding the killing of animals.   People don't often view wasting burgers as an animal ethics thing because they do everything they can to not make the connection between their food and an animal being killed.   Based on what you said, you might make a claim that it's necessary to kill the animals to protect your crops, I'm just explaining why I think the contradiction exists.   Honestly I'm a little baffled that your response to the contradiction is that both things are okay. Why isn't your view that wasting burgers is related to animal ethics?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4909.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf11zt2","c_root_id_B":"hf03nei","created_at_utc_A":1633127527,"created_at_utc_B":1633111771,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.  People who advocate animal ethics consider both cases to be unethical.   The \"as long as you eat the meat\" thing is generally a method of placating cognitive dissonance surrounding the killing of animals.   People don't often view wasting burgers as an animal ethics thing because they do everything they can to not make the connection between their food and an animal being killed.   Based on what you said, you might make a claim that it's necessary to kill the animals to protect your crops, I'm just explaining why I think the contradiction exists.   Honestly I'm a little baffled that your response to the contradiction is that both things are okay. Why isn't your view that wasting burgers is related to animal ethics?","human_ref_B":"I wouldn't say it is a waste.  Predatory animals likely will consume the meat that is left, as will the scavengers.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15756.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf08clk","c_root_id_B":"hf11zt2","created_at_utc_A":1633113821,"created_at_utc_B":1633127527,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"So in my state it is illegal to leave the meat to rot on a game animal, you're required to take the 4 quarters and backstraps on deer specifically. Since there's an explicit code of rules involved, shooting a deer and leaving it to rot makes it unethical by definition.   I think what you mean is that it isn't immoral if you can justify it according to your personal code, and I agree with you in that context. While I don't condone wonton killing of animals with no attempt to salvage the meat, I am personally much more willing to throw imprecise shots downrange at a wild hog than I will a deer. If that pig runs off mortally wounded and I never find it, I'm not unhappy about its death.","human_ref_B":">Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.  People who advocate animal ethics consider both cases to be unethical.   The \"as long as you eat the meat\" thing is generally a method of placating cognitive dissonance surrounding the killing of animals.   People don't often view wasting burgers as an animal ethics thing because they do everything they can to not make the connection between their food and an animal being killed.   Based on what you said, you might make a claim that it's necessary to kill the animals to protect your crops, I'm just explaining why I think the contradiction exists.   Honestly I'm a little baffled that your response to the contradiction is that both things are okay. Why isn't your view that wasting burgers is related to animal ethics?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13706.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf01m0d","c_root_id_B":"hf11zt2","created_at_utc_A":1633110884,"created_at_utc_B":1633127527,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Assuming the game animal is not an invasive species, hunting one is partially damaging to the ecosystem. If you eat it you can argue that the net benefit is positive, but just killing for the sake of your pleasure is a net negative. Killing for the safety of your crops is also a net positive, by some accounts.   Cows are raised for the purpose of being killed. Killing them does not do any further harm any local ecosystem since humans already ruined the ecosystem by building a cow factory there. So throwing away 20% of a cow is a lot less wrong than 100% of a deer that you took away from it's habitat.","human_ref_B":">Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.  People who advocate animal ethics consider both cases to be unethical.   The \"as long as you eat the meat\" thing is generally a method of placating cognitive dissonance surrounding the killing of animals.   People don't often view wasting burgers as an animal ethics thing because they do everything they can to not make the connection between their food and an animal being killed.   Based on what you said, you might make a claim that it's necessary to kill the animals to protect your crops, I'm just explaining why I think the contradiction exists.   Honestly I'm a little baffled that your response to the contradiction is that both things are okay. Why isn't your view that wasting burgers is related to animal ethics?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16643.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf050y2","c_root_id_B":"hf11zt2","created_at_utc_A":1633112375,"created_at_utc_B":1633127527,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"So im vego too, and wildlife management is totally a tricky area for me to navigate, but I place killing for food only marginally above killing for entertainment (which is what I consider most meat eating is). Further, food is wasted in western countries on a staggering scale so how unethical that should be considered is up for argument.  So 'merely' a waste of resources is itself an ethical question.","human_ref_B":">Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.  People who advocate animal ethics consider both cases to be unethical.   The \"as long as you eat the meat\" thing is generally a method of placating cognitive dissonance surrounding the killing of animals.   People don't often view wasting burgers as an animal ethics thing because they do everything they can to not make the connection between their food and an animal being killed.   Based on what you said, you might make a claim that it's necessary to kill the animals to protect your crops, I'm just explaining why I think the contradiction exists.   Honestly I'm a little baffled that your response to the contradiction is that both things are okay. Why isn't your view that wasting burgers is related to animal ethics?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15152.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf11zt2","c_root_id_B":"hf0a8fu","created_at_utc_A":1633127527,"created_at_utc_B":1633114639,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.  People who advocate animal ethics consider both cases to be unethical.   The \"as long as you eat the meat\" thing is generally a method of placating cognitive dissonance surrounding the killing of animals.   People don't often view wasting burgers as an animal ethics thing because they do everything they can to not make the connection between their food and an animal being killed.   Based on what you said, you might make a claim that it's necessary to kill the animals to protect your crops, I'm just explaining why I think the contradiction exists.   Honestly I'm a little baffled that your response to the contradiction is that both things are okay. Why isn't your view that wasting burgers is related to animal ethics?","human_ref_B":">. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.  How about scale? A dozen leftover burgers is about 3 pounds, even 4 of those (which I have never seen any individual throw out that many unless they unintentionally let them go bad) is only 12 pounds, a dear is 60-80 pounds of meat. It'd be the equivalent of throwing out 20 dozen or 240 burgers which I think most people would call unethical if they saw someone just wasting that much food.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12888.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf03nei","c_root_id_B":"hf04mfi","created_at_utc_A":1633111771,"created_at_utc_B":1633112199,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I wouldn't say it is a waste.  Predatory animals likely will consume the meat that is left, as will the scavengers.","human_ref_B":"> I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I think the act is similar, but the result and intention is i different.  A waste of resources is a waste of resources.  However buying something at a store with the INTENT of never consuming it, is different than simply forgetting, or not properly utilizing it.  Further, in the practicality aspect. A whole animal is a hell of a lot more than a few burgers.  As an analogy: Is it just as unethical to go subconsciously 5MPH over the speed limit as it is to intentionally drag race 50MPH over the speed limit?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":428.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf01m0d","c_root_id_B":"hf04mfi","created_at_utc_A":1633110884,"created_at_utc_B":1633112199,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Assuming the game animal is not an invasive species, hunting one is partially damaging to the ecosystem. If you eat it you can argue that the net benefit is positive, but just killing for the sake of your pleasure is a net negative. Killing for the safety of your crops is also a net positive, by some accounts.   Cows are raised for the purpose of being killed. Killing them does not do any further harm any local ecosystem since humans already ruined the ecosystem by building a cow factory there. So throwing away 20% of a cow is a lot less wrong than 100% of a deer that you took away from it's habitat.","human_ref_B":"> I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I think the act is similar, but the result and intention is i different.  A waste of resources is a waste of resources.  However buying something at a store with the INTENT of never consuming it, is different than simply forgetting, or not properly utilizing it.  Further, in the practicality aspect. A whole animal is a hell of a lot more than a few burgers.  As an analogy: Is it just as unethical to go subconsciously 5MPH over the speed limit as it is to intentionally drag race 50MPH over the speed limit?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1315.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf03nei","c_root_id_B":"hf0runk","created_at_utc_A":1633111771,"created_at_utc_B":1633122618,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I wouldn't say it is a waste.  Predatory animals likely will consume the meat that is left, as will the scavengers.","human_ref_B":">I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense.  Well, perhaps it does. There are plenty of beliefs running through society that haven't been critically examined by most people. That we have failed to take note of this issue, where the wastefulness is a little less on-the-nose (the people in question are eating *some* of the animal, at least), does not mean that other instances of wastefulness should also be treated as non-issues.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10847.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf08clk","c_root_id_B":"hf0runk","created_at_utc_A":1633113821,"created_at_utc_B":1633122618,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"So in my state it is illegal to leave the meat to rot on a game animal, you're required to take the 4 quarters and backstraps on deer specifically. Since there's an explicit code of rules involved, shooting a deer and leaving it to rot makes it unethical by definition.   I think what you mean is that it isn't immoral if you can justify it according to your personal code, and I agree with you in that context. While I don't condone wonton killing of animals with no attempt to salvage the meat, I am personally much more willing to throw imprecise shots downrange at a wild hog than I will a deer. If that pig runs off mortally wounded and I never find it, I'm not unhappy about its death.","human_ref_B":">I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense.  Well, perhaps it does. There are plenty of beliefs running through society that haven't been critically examined by most people. That we have failed to take note of this issue, where the wastefulness is a little less on-the-nose (the people in question are eating *some* of the animal, at least), does not mean that other instances of wastefulness should also be treated as non-issues.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8797.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf01m0d","c_root_id_B":"hf0runk","created_at_utc_A":1633110884,"created_at_utc_B":1633122618,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Assuming the game animal is not an invasive species, hunting one is partially damaging to the ecosystem. If you eat it you can argue that the net benefit is positive, but just killing for the sake of your pleasure is a net negative. Killing for the safety of your crops is also a net positive, by some accounts.   Cows are raised for the purpose of being killed. Killing them does not do any further harm any local ecosystem since humans already ruined the ecosystem by building a cow factory there. So throwing away 20% of a cow is a lot less wrong than 100% of a deer that you took away from it's habitat.","human_ref_B":">I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense.  Well, perhaps it does. There are plenty of beliefs running through society that haven't been critically examined by most people. That we have failed to take note of this issue, where the wastefulness is a little less on-the-nose (the people in question are eating *some* of the animal, at least), does not mean that other instances of wastefulness should also be treated as non-issues.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11734.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf0runk","c_root_id_B":"hf050y2","created_at_utc_A":1633122618,"created_at_utc_B":1633112375,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense.  Well, perhaps it does. There are plenty of beliefs running through society that haven't been critically examined by most people. That we have failed to take note of this issue, where the wastefulness is a little less on-the-nose (the people in question are eating *some* of the animal, at least), does not mean that other instances of wastefulness should also be treated as non-issues.","human_ref_B":"So im vego too, and wildlife management is totally a tricky area for me to navigate, but I place killing for food only marginally above killing for entertainment (which is what I consider most meat eating is). Further, food is wasted in western countries on a staggering scale so how unethical that should be considered is up for argument.  So 'merely' a waste of resources is itself an ethical question.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10243.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf0a8fu","c_root_id_B":"hf0runk","created_at_utc_A":1633114639,"created_at_utc_B":1633122618,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.  How about scale? A dozen leftover burgers is about 3 pounds, even 4 of those (which I have never seen any individual throw out that many unless they unintentionally let them go bad) is only 12 pounds, a dear is 60-80 pounds of meat. It'd be the equivalent of throwing out 20 dozen or 240 burgers which I think most people would call unethical if they saw someone just wasting that much food.","human_ref_B":">I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense.  Well, perhaps it does. There are plenty of beliefs running through society that haven't been critically examined by most people. That we have failed to take note of this issue, where the wastefulness is a little less on-the-nose (the people in question are eating *some* of the animal, at least), does not mean that other instances of wastefulness should also be treated as non-issues.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7979.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf03nei","c_root_id_B":"hf01m0d","created_at_utc_A":1633111771,"created_at_utc_B":1633110884,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I wouldn't say it is a waste.  Predatory animals likely will consume the meat that is left, as will the scavengers.","human_ref_B":"Assuming the game animal is not an invasive species, hunting one is partially damaging to the ecosystem. If you eat it you can argue that the net benefit is positive, but just killing for the sake of your pleasure is a net negative. Killing for the safety of your crops is also a net positive, by some accounts.   Cows are raised for the purpose of being killed. Killing them does not do any further harm any local ecosystem since humans already ruined the ecosystem by building a cow factory there. So throwing away 20% of a cow is a lot less wrong than 100% of a deer that you took away from it's habitat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":887.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf08clk","c_root_id_B":"hf01m0d","created_at_utc_A":1633113821,"created_at_utc_B":1633110884,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So in my state it is illegal to leave the meat to rot on a game animal, you're required to take the 4 quarters and backstraps on deer specifically. Since there's an explicit code of rules involved, shooting a deer and leaving it to rot makes it unethical by definition.   I think what you mean is that it isn't immoral if you can justify it according to your personal code, and I agree with you in that context. While I don't condone wonton killing of animals with no attempt to salvage the meat, I am personally much more willing to throw imprecise shots downrange at a wild hog than I will a deer. If that pig runs off mortally wounded and I never find it, I'm not unhappy about its death.","human_ref_B":"Assuming the game animal is not an invasive species, hunting one is partially damaging to the ecosystem. If you eat it you can argue that the net benefit is positive, but just killing for the sake of your pleasure is a net negative. Killing for the safety of your crops is also a net positive, by some accounts.   Cows are raised for the purpose of being killed. Killing them does not do any further harm any local ecosystem since humans already ruined the ecosystem by building a cow factory there. So throwing away 20% of a cow is a lot less wrong than 100% of a deer that you took away from it's habitat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2937.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"pz9qm4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer\/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals.   I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), \"It's fine as long as you eat the meat.\" Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a \"don't waste food\" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered.   I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals.","c_root_id_A":"hf08clk","c_root_id_B":"hf050y2","created_at_utc_A":1633113821,"created_at_utc_B":1633112375,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So in my state it is illegal to leave the meat to rot on a game animal, you're required to take the 4 quarters and backstraps on deer specifically. Since there's an explicit code of rules involved, shooting a deer and leaving it to rot makes it unethical by definition.   I think what you mean is that it isn't immoral if you can justify it according to your personal code, and I agree with you in that context. While I don't condone wonton killing of animals with no attempt to salvage the meat, I am personally much more willing to throw imprecise shots downrange at a wild hog than I will a deer. If that pig runs off mortally wounded and I never find it, I'm not unhappy about its death.","human_ref_B":"So im vego too, and wildlife management is totally a tricky area for me to navigate, but I place killing for food only marginally above killing for entertainment (which is what I consider most meat eating is). Further, food is wasted in western countries on a staggering scale so how unethical that should be considered is up for argument.  So 'merely' a waste of resources is itself an ethical question.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1446.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u10o0o","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: it is not unethical to pray for someone without their permission It has recently come to my attention that many people strongly believe that it is unethical to pray for others without their permission.  While I myself am not religious, I absolutely do not understand how it could be unethical top pray for others without their permission or even against their express wishes.  After all, where would the line be?  If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.  I don't like clinging to a personal belief that contradicts the wishes and rights of other people, but I cannot ration how praying for anyone could be harmful.  CMV?","c_root_id_A":"i49fn19","c_root_id_B":"i49mobj","created_at_utc_A":1649657300,"created_at_utc_B":1649662799,"score_A":10,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Just a quick clarification question - would it be ethical to pray against someone? i.e., asking god to strike them down or otherwise punish someone.  &nbsp;  > couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly **think a kind thought** about that person.  &nbsp;  For non believers, wishing and praying are essentially synonymous. But believers don't think prayer is at all similar to wishing\/thoughts. Believers literally believe that prayer has power to affect the world. So if I was going to take an exam, or attempt to complete some difficult task, and a believer prays for me, then if I accomplish the task, in their mind they gave me a, real, helping hand. They are are taking my accomplishment away from me.  &nbsp;  A real world example, for a few months, I spent hours after work preparing for technical interviews. I then applied for new jobs, and passed the interviews. After accepting the new job, my mother in law mentioned that she prayed for me. When I didn't thank her for her \"help\", she became upset and called me ungrateful.   &nbsp;  A second and different example, many believers pray for their LGBT family members to be \"cured\". You can imagine how offensive this would be, so I won't go into further detail.","human_ref_B":"I don't think what you describe is an accurate portrayal of what people have a problem with.  They aren't made about the prayer itself, they are typically mad about 1 of 2 things, depending on the situation.  1. There are those that think people use the idea of \"thoughts and prayers\" in a dishonest or hypocritical posturing.  The most common example is in response to a school shooting.  The argument from their perspective is that prayer does nothing, so to **publicly offer prayers** is to posture oneselfs as moral while not actually doing anything which is dishonest; or even worse to do so while supporting republicans that don't support gun regulation, which makes the situation worse. 2. Telling someone that you are praying for them is often seen as very judgmental in certain situations.  OBviously not in cases like a family member dying, more in situations like where it's like \"I pray you can live you life in a better way\".  In either case the prayer itself isn't what people object to, it's the interactions people have with other regarding prayer that is disproved of, dishonest public posturing, or using the topic of prayer to judge\/shame someone.  Regardless of if you agree with those arguments, it's worth it to understand what the actual argument is.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5499.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"u10o0o","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: it is not unethical to pray for someone without their permission It has recently come to my attention that many people strongly believe that it is unethical to pray for others without their permission.  While I myself am not religious, I absolutely do not understand how it could be unethical top pray for others without their permission or even against their express wishes.  After all, where would the line be?  If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.  I don't like clinging to a personal belief that contradicts the wishes and rights of other people, but I cannot ration how praying for anyone could be harmful.  CMV?","c_root_id_A":"i49mobj","c_root_id_B":"i49fmzh","created_at_utc_A":1649662799,"created_at_utc_B":1649657299,"score_A":18,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I don't think what you describe is an accurate portrayal of what people have a problem with.  They aren't made about the prayer itself, they are typically mad about 1 of 2 things, depending on the situation.  1. There are those that think people use the idea of \"thoughts and prayers\" in a dishonest or hypocritical posturing.  The most common example is in response to a school shooting.  The argument from their perspective is that prayer does nothing, so to **publicly offer prayers** is to posture oneselfs as moral while not actually doing anything which is dishonest; or even worse to do so while supporting republicans that don't support gun regulation, which makes the situation worse. 2. Telling someone that you are praying for them is often seen as very judgmental in certain situations.  OBviously not in cases like a family member dying, more in situations like where it's like \"I pray you can live you life in a better way\".  In either case the prayer itself isn't what people object to, it's the interactions people have with other regarding prayer that is disproved of, dishonest public posturing, or using the topic of prayer to judge\/shame someone.  Regardless of if you agree with those arguments, it's worth it to understand what the actual argument is.","human_ref_B":">even against their express wishes  This is where we diverge.   If you pray for someone against their wishes, then it's for your benefit and not theirs.    >If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.    That makes no sense, a thought is a thought. A prayer is with conscious intention.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5500.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"u10o0o","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: it is not unethical to pray for someone without their permission It has recently come to my attention that many people strongly believe that it is unethical to pray for others without their permission.  While I myself am not religious, I absolutely do not understand how it could be unethical top pray for others without their permission or even against their express wishes.  After all, where would the line be?  If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.  I don't like clinging to a personal belief that contradicts the wishes and rights of other people, but I cannot ration how praying for anyone could be harmful.  CMV?","c_root_id_A":"i49mobj","c_root_id_B":"i49g6bp","created_at_utc_A":1649662799,"created_at_utc_B":1649657703,"score_A":18,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't think what you describe is an accurate portrayal of what people have a problem with.  They aren't made about the prayer itself, they are typically mad about 1 of 2 things, depending on the situation.  1. There are those that think people use the idea of \"thoughts and prayers\" in a dishonest or hypocritical posturing.  The most common example is in response to a school shooting.  The argument from their perspective is that prayer does nothing, so to **publicly offer prayers** is to posture oneselfs as moral while not actually doing anything which is dishonest; or even worse to do so while supporting republicans that don't support gun regulation, which makes the situation worse. 2. Telling someone that you are praying for them is often seen as very judgmental in certain situations.  OBviously not in cases like a family member dying, more in situations like where it's like \"I pray you can live you life in a better way\".  In either case the prayer itself isn't what people object to, it's the interactions people have with other regarding prayer that is disproved of, dishonest public posturing, or using the topic of prayer to judge\/shame someone.  Regardless of if you agree with those arguments, it's worth it to understand what the actual argument is.","human_ref_B":"It's hard to make judgement here without context.   I sincerely doubt most people would take offense if a congregation prays for a town's safety before a hurricane.   However, if someone were to tell a homosexual that they'll be praying the gay away on their behalf, that's another thing.   Unethical probably isn't right word here, but it certainly be offensive\/insulting.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5096.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"u10o0o","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: it is not unethical to pray for someone without their permission It has recently come to my attention that many people strongly believe that it is unethical to pray for others without their permission.  While I myself am not religious, I absolutely do not understand how it could be unethical top pray for others without their permission or even against their express wishes.  After all, where would the line be?  If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.  I don't like clinging to a personal belief that contradicts the wishes and rights of other people, but I cannot ration how praying for anyone could be harmful.  CMV?","c_root_id_A":"i49mobj","c_root_id_B":"i49i2em","created_at_utc_A":1649662799,"created_at_utc_B":1649659115,"score_A":18,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't think what you describe is an accurate portrayal of what people have a problem with.  They aren't made about the prayer itself, they are typically mad about 1 of 2 things, depending on the situation.  1. There are those that think people use the idea of \"thoughts and prayers\" in a dishonest or hypocritical posturing.  The most common example is in response to a school shooting.  The argument from their perspective is that prayer does nothing, so to **publicly offer prayers** is to posture oneselfs as moral while not actually doing anything which is dishonest; or even worse to do so while supporting republicans that don't support gun regulation, which makes the situation worse. 2. Telling someone that you are praying for them is often seen as very judgmental in certain situations.  OBviously not in cases like a family member dying, more in situations like where it's like \"I pray you can live you life in a better way\".  In either case the prayer itself isn't what people object to, it's the interactions people have with other regarding prayer that is disproved of, dishonest public posturing, or using the topic of prayer to judge\/shame someone.  Regardless of if you agree with those arguments, it's worth it to understand what the actual argument is.","human_ref_B":"I figure it depends on the prayer being made and the deity to whom its being made to.  A prayer for God to change someone, or sway them against their wishes seems more unethical. eg; Lets hope the evil sinner changes their ways. This is a very different prayer to one whereby a person hopes their god will heal someone of a genuine medical illness, or fix their problems, or provide some comfort in a time of need.  Also, consider the deity. What if you said to someone, I will pray to Satan for you and that person is a Christian. They might get pretty upset at that.  Ultimately, I dont think you need permission, unless the person you are praying for thinks that your prayers will have an effect. If the person does not think there will be an effect then what harm is there, and maybe there in lies the small niggling issue at the heart of it. If you are a non-believer in the effect of prayer, you will always suspect that if someone prays for you in the best most kind way, then maybe maybe the prayer is actually answered which then questions everything.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3684.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"u10o0o","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: it is not unethical to pray for someone without their permission It has recently come to my attention that many people strongly believe that it is unethical to pray for others without their permission.  While I myself am not religious, I absolutely do not understand how it could be unethical top pray for others without their permission or even against their express wishes.  After all, where would the line be?  If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.  I don't like clinging to a personal belief that contradicts the wishes and rights of other people, but I cannot ration how praying for anyone could be harmful.  CMV?","c_root_id_A":"i49mgqy","c_root_id_B":"i49mobj","created_at_utc_A":1649662625,"created_at_utc_B":1649662799,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I believe the origin of this debate is the Mormon act of Baptizing the dead in the name of the Book of Mormon.","human_ref_B":"I don't think what you describe is an accurate portrayal of what people have a problem with.  They aren't made about the prayer itself, they are typically mad about 1 of 2 things, depending on the situation.  1. There are those that think people use the idea of \"thoughts and prayers\" in a dishonest or hypocritical posturing.  The most common example is in response to a school shooting.  The argument from their perspective is that prayer does nothing, so to **publicly offer prayers** is to posture oneselfs as moral while not actually doing anything which is dishonest; or even worse to do so while supporting republicans that don't support gun regulation, which makes the situation worse. 2. Telling someone that you are praying for them is often seen as very judgmental in certain situations.  OBviously not in cases like a family member dying, more in situations like where it's like \"I pray you can live you life in a better way\".  In either case the prayer itself isn't what people object to, it's the interactions people have with other regarding prayer that is disproved of, dishonest public posturing, or using the topic of prayer to judge\/shame someone.  Regardless of if you agree with those arguments, it's worth it to understand what the actual argument is.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":174.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"u10o0o","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: it is not unethical to pray for someone without their permission It has recently come to my attention that many people strongly believe that it is unethical to pray for others without their permission.  While I myself am not religious, I absolutely do not understand how it could be unethical top pray for others without their permission or even against their express wishes.  After all, where would the line be?  If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.  I don't like clinging to a personal belief that contradicts the wishes and rights of other people, but I cannot ration how praying for anyone could be harmful.  CMV?","c_root_id_A":"i49fmzh","c_root_id_B":"i49fn19","created_at_utc_A":1649657299,"created_at_utc_B":1649657300,"score_A":4,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":">even against their express wishes  This is where we diverge.   If you pray for someone against their wishes, then it's for your benefit and not theirs.    >If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.    That makes no sense, a thought is a thought. A prayer is with conscious intention.","human_ref_B":"Just a quick clarification question - would it be ethical to pray against someone? i.e., asking god to strike them down or otherwise punish someone.  &nbsp;  > couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly **think a kind thought** about that person.  &nbsp;  For non believers, wishing and praying are essentially synonymous. But believers don't think prayer is at all similar to wishing\/thoughts. Believers literally believe that prayer has power to affect the world. So if I was going to take an exam, or attempt to complete some difficult task, and a believer prays for me, then if I accomplish the task, in their mind they gave me a, real, helping hand. They are are taking my accomplishment away from me.  &nbsp;  A real world example, for a few months, I spent hours after work preparing for technical interviews. I then applied for new jobs, and passed the interviews. After accepting the new job, my mother in law mentioned that she prayed for me. When I didn't thank her for her \"help\", she became upset and called me ungrateful.   &nbsp;  A second and different example, many believers pray for their LGBT family members to be \"cured\". You can imagine how offensive this would be, so I won't go into further detail.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"u10o0o","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: it is not unethical to pray for someone without their permission It has recently come to my attention that many people strongly believe that it is unethical to pray for others without their permission.  While I myself am not religious, I absolutely do not understand how it could be unethical top pray for others without their permission or even against their express wishes.  After all, where would the line be?  If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.  I don't like clinging to a personal belief that contradicts the wishes and rights of other people, but I cannot ration how praying for anyone could be harmful.  CMV?","c_root_id_A":"i49fmzh","c_root_id_B":"i4a0lbt","created_at_utc_A":1649657299,"created_at_utc_B":1649673975,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":">even against their express wishes  This is where we diverge.   If you pray for someone against their wishes, then it's for your benefit and not theirs.    >If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.    That makes no sense, a thought is a thought. A prayer is with conscious intention.","human_ref_B":"Look, I don't care if you pray for me. But, don't come up to me and say \"Is it okay if I pray for you?\". I'm disabled, and a lot of people think this is a situation I would want to be prayed for in. However, assuming I want some kind of cure and so praying that I find it is slightly offensive I'd say. There's no reason I should automatically want to be cured, I'm happy as I am. Point is, a situation you may perceive to be undesired may actually be neutral or good for the other person in question, and wishing that away is a bit weird, no?  Also, what does bug me, is when people ask to pray for yoy. Like I said earlier, fine, if you really want to pray, go for it. But don't ask the person to. It makes it less of a \"kind\" act, and more of a public show of kindness.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16676.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"u10o0o","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: it is not unethical to pray for someone without their permission It has recently come to my attention that many people strongly believe that it is unethical to pray for others without their permission.  While I myself am not religious, I absolutely do not understand how it could be unethical top pray for others without their permission or even against their express wishes.  After all, where would the line be?  If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.  I don't like clinging to a personal belief that contradicts the wishes and rights of other people, but I cannot ration how praying for anyone could be harmful.  CMV?","c_root_id_A":"i49g6bp","c_root_id_B":"i4a0lbt","created_at_utc_A":1649657703,"created_at_utc_B":1649673975,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"It's hard to make judgement here without context.   I sincerely doubt most people would take offense if a congregation prays for a town's safety before a hurricane.   However, if someone were to tell a homosexual that they'll be praying the gay away on their behalf, that's another thing.   Unethical probably isn't right word here, but it certainly be offensive\/insulting.","human_ref_B":"Look, I don't care if you pray for me. But, don't come up to me and say \"Is it okay if I pray for you?\". I'm disabled, and a lot of people think this is a situation I would want to be prayed for in. However, assuming I want some kind of cure and so praying that I find it is slightly offensive I'd say. There's no reason I should automatically want to be cured, I'm happy as I am. Point is, a situation you may perceive to be undesired may actually be neutral or good for the other person in question, and wishing that away is a bit weird, no?  Also, what does bug me, is when people ask to pray for yoy. Like I said earlier, fine, if you really want to pray, go for it. But don't ask the person to. It makes it less of a \"kind\" act, and more of a public show of kindness.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16272.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"u10o0o","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: it is not unethical to pray for someone without their permission It has recently come to my attention that many people strongly believe that it is unethical to pray for others without their permission.  While I myself am not religious, I absolutely do not understand how it could be unethical top pray for others without their permission or even against their express wishes.  After all, where would the line be?  If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.  I don't like clinging to a personal belief that contradicts the wishes and rights of other people, but I cannot ration how praying for anyone could be harmful.  CMV?","c_root_id_A":"i49i2em","c_root_id_B":"i4a0lbt","created_at_utc_A":1649659115,"created_at_utc_B":1649673975,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I figure it depends on the prayer being made and the deity to whom its being made to.  A prayer for God to change someone, or sway them against their wishes seems more unethical. eg; Lets hope the evil sinner changes their ways. This is a very different prayer to one whereby a person hopes their god will heal someone of a genuine medical illness, or fix their problems, or provide some comfort in a time of need.  Also, consider the deity. What if you said to someone, I will pray to Satan for you and that person is a Christian. They might get pretty upset at that.  Ultimately, I dont think you need permission, unless the person you are praying for thinks that your prayers will have an effect. If the person does not think there will be an effect then what harm is there, and maybe there in lies the small niggling issue at the heart of it. If you are a non-believer in the effect of prayer, you will always suspect that if someone prays for you in the best most kind way, then maybe maybe the prayer is actually answered which then questions everything.","human_ref_B":"Look, I don't care if you pray for me. But, don't come up to me and say \"Is it okay if I pray for you?\". I'm disabled, and a lot of people think this is a situation I would want to be prayed for in. However, assuming I want some kind of cure and so praying that I find it is slightly offensive I'd say. There's no reason I should automatically want to be cured, I'm happy as I am. Point is, a situation you may perceive to be undesired may actually be neutral or good for the other person in question, and wishing that away is a bit weird, no?  Also, what does bug me, is when people ask to pray for yoy. Like I said earlier, fine, if you really want to pray, go for it. But don't ask the person to. It makes it less of a \"kind\" act, and more of a public show of kindness.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14860.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"u10o0o","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: it is not unethical to pray for someone without their permission It has recently come to my attention that many people strongly believe that it is unethical to pray for others without their permission.  While I myself am not religious, I absolutely do not understand how it could be unethical top pray for others without their permission or even against their express wishes.  After all, where would the line be?  If it's unethical to pray for someone without their permission couldn't one carry that argument out and equally argue that it's unethical to briefly think a kind thought about that person.  I don't like clinging to a personal belief that contradicts the wishes and rights of other people, but I cannot ration how praying for anyone could be harmful.  CMV?","c_root_id_A":"i4a0lbt","c_root_id_B":"i49mgqy","created_at_utc_A":1649673975,"created_at_utc_B":1649662625,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Look, I don't care if you pray for me. But, don't come up to me and say \"Is it okay if I pray for you?\". I'm disabled, and a lot of people think this is a situation I would want to be prayed for in. However, assuming I want some kind of cure and so praying that I find it is slightly offensive I'd say. There's no reason I should automatically want to be cured, I'm happy as I am. Point is, a situation you may perceive to be undesired may actually be neutral or good for the other person in question, and wishing that away is a bit weird, no?  Also, what does bug me, is when people ask to pray for yoy. Like I said earlier, fine, if you really want to pray, go for it. But don't ask the person to. It makes it less of a \"kind\" act, and more of a public show of kindness.","human_ref_B":"I believe the origin of this debate is the Mormon act of Baptizing the dead in the name of the Book of Mormon.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11350.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2t9v6","c_root_id_B":"dh2wp2s","created_at_utc_A":1493824767,"created_at_utc_B":1493828475,"score_A":93,"score_B":196,"human_ref_A":"Clarifying question. Do you think losing roughly 20% of your base is a small thing? This is a massive failure for any politician, especially one who can only win by the narrowest margins in the first place.","human_ref_B":"I would argue that your premise does not have a strong base. While 80% is still a supermajority, losing 20% of his supporters would mean landslide victories in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. where Trump only won by a small margin. These three states alone would lose 46 electoral votes and be enough to lose the election.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3708.0,"score_ratio":2.1075268817}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2wp2s","c_root_id_B":"dh2svue","created_at_utc_A":1493828475,"created_at_utc_B":1493824337,"score_A":196,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I would argue that your premise does not have a strong base. While 80% is still a supermajority, losing 20% of his supporters would mean landslide victories in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. where Trump only won by a small margin. These three states alone would lose 46 electoral votes and be enough to lose the election.","human_ref_B":"People vote for an ideology. If you were to make the case to some of Trump's supporters that he has accomplished nothing that he promised to do, they would likely say that while that's not ideal, it's still acceptable because he still \"thinks\" the right way, and that nothing is still better than the alternative would have been.    > He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  None of that has anything to do with policy or campaign promises.  You're just venting about his supporters.  However, what I think is most troubling about what you've written here is that you seem to be implying that this is somehow unique to Trump's supporters, when even a glimpse at history will show that that is not the case. People are loyal to their \"team\", and will find a way to idolize whatever \"their guy\" does, while demonizing someone else for doing the same thing.   You point out that Trump's supporters are a lot more forgiving of the executive orders when it's Trump doing it and not Obama...but can you not say the exact same thing about the left? I'm suddenly hearing a lot of complaints about executive orders that I didn't hear from 2008 to 2016 from a lot of people I know.    When people say \"policies\", they mean his way of thinking. They mean they support him because they believe that he will represent them the way they want to be represented (or at least closer than anyone else will).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4138.0,"score_ratio":13.0666666667}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2wp2s","c_root_id_B":"dh2uplk","created_at_utc_A":1493828475,"created_at_utc_B":1493826341,"score_A":196,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I would argue that your premise does not have a strong base. While 80% is still a supermajority, losing 20% of his supporters would mean landslide victories in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. where Trump only won by a small margin. These three states alone would lose 46 electoral votes and be enough to lose the election.","human_ref_B":"I think your base premise is false, because it assumes that he hasn't already lost support. But he has lost support from people who previously supported him, particularly among independents. Just look at his approval ratings (although admittedly independents weren't his most die hard fans to begin with). He also appears to be losing support among white males.   Many of the people who voted for Trump didn't actually vote *for* him, but *against* Clinton. And now that she is largely out of the public spotlight, the fog has lifted and people are seeing him in his own right. People *really* do not like Hillary Clinton.   You also have to take into account that we are just past Trump's first 100 days. And people won't shift their views until his policy affects them personally. He hasn't had the time to affect many people personally yet. When he does affect them, they turn on him pretty fast.   He also doesn't have the excuse of democratic obstructionism to fall back on, and I think that will hurt him in the long run. He controls the house and senate, and when he can't get them in line or put meaningful policy through, it makes him look weak. He can try hide behind the excuse that the judicial system is persecuting him, but it's not just democratic leaning judges that are fighting him. He has very few things to hide behind right now. And I think when he fails to put out impactful policy, his supporters will start to notice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2134.0,"score_ratio":15.0769230769}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2syew","c_root_id_B":"dh2wp2s","created_at_utc_A":1493824413,"created_at_utc_B":1493828475,"score_A":7,"score_B":196,"human_ref_A":"As someone who liked what Trump said but is now disliking his actions, I can tell you that there are people out there who feel the same.  A lot of Trump's rhetoric appealed to me: Non-intervention, cut taxes, cut spending, repeal ACA, shrink government, limit lobbying, impose term limits, etc. Trump hasn't really followed through on those, but he is barely into his term, so we'll see. If he continues increasing military action, doesn't repeal ACA, increases spending, and spending tons on vacations\/golf, I will not support him, but...  ...the real issue is that if there is another Hillary Clinton running against him, then his supporters have virtually no other choice. At best, Trump is a Libertarian, at worst, he is Obama\/Clinton\/Bush 2.0, but it is too early to tell  for sure (but its definitely looking like Obama 2.0)","human_ref_B":"I would argue that your premise does not have a strong base. While 80% is still a supermajority, losing 20% of his supporters would mean landslide victories in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. where Trump only won by a small margin. These three states alone would lose 46 electoral votes and be enough to lose the election.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4062.0,"score_ratio":28.0}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2wp2s","c_root_id_B":"dh2vr0m","created_at_utc_A":1493828475,"created_at_utc_B":1493827462,"score_A":196,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I would argue that your premise does not have a strong base. While 80% is still a supermajority, losing 20% of his supporters would mean landslide victories in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. where Trump only won by a small margin. These three states alone would lose 46 electoral votes and be enough to lose the election.","human_ref_B":"Hasn't he already lost a good chunk of his support","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1013.0,"score_ratio":49.0}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2t9v6","c_root_id_B":"dh2svue","created_at_utc_A":1493824767,"created_at_utc_B":1493824337,"score_A":93,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Clarifying question. Do you think losing roughly 20% of your base is a small thing? This is a massive failure for any politician, especially one who can only win by the narrowest margins in the first place.","human_ref_B":"People vote for an ideology. If you were to make the case to some of Trump's supporters that he has accomplished nothing that he promised to do, they would likely say that while that's not ideal, it's still acceptable because he still \"thinks\" the right way, and that nothing is still better than the alternative would have been.    > He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  None of that has anything to do with policy or campaign promises.  You're just venting about his supporters.  However, what I think is most troubling about what you've written here is that you seem to be implying that this is somehow unique to Trump's supporters, when even a glimpse at history will show that that is not the case. People are loyal to their \"team\", and will find a way to idolize whatever \"their guy\" does, while demonizing someone else for doing the same thing.   You point out that Trump's supporters are a lot more forgiving of the executive orders when it's Trump doing it and not Obama...but can you not say the exact same thing about the left? I'm suddenly hearing a lot of complaints about executive orders that I didn't hear from 2008 to 2016 from a lot of people I know.    When people say \"policies\", they mean his way of thinking. They mean they support him because they believe that he will represent them the way they want to be represented (or at least closer than anyone else will).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":430.0,"score_ratio":6.2}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2syew","c_root_id_B":"dh2t9v6","created_at_utc_A":1493824413,"created_at_utc_B":1493824767,"score_A":7,"score_B":93,"human_ref_A":"As someone who liked what Trump said but is now disliking his actions, I can tell you that there are people out there who feel the same.  A lot of Trump's rhetoric appealed to me: Non-intervention, cut taxes, cut spending, repeal ACA, shrink government, limit lobbying, impose term limits, etc. Trump hasn't really followed through on those, but he is barely into his term, so we'll see. If he continues increasing military action, doesn't repeal ACA, increases spending, and spending tons on vacations\/golf, I will not support him, but...  ...the real issue is that if there is another Hillary Clinton running against him, then his supporters have virtually no other choice. At best, Trump is a Libertarian, at worst, he is Obama\/Clinton\/Bush 2.0, but it is too early to tell  for sure (but its definitely looking like Obama 2.0)","human_ref_B":"Clarifying question. Do you think losing roughly 20% of your base is a small thing? This is a massive failure for any politician, especially one who can only win by the narrowest margins in the first place.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":354.0,"score_ratio":13.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh346zn","c_root_id_B":"dh35lbb","created_at_utc_A":1493836416,"created_at_utc_B":1493837912,"score_A":24,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"I think you're half right.  Trump didn't get elected because of what he promised to do ***FOR*** his followers.    He got elected because of what he promised to do ***TO*** their enemies.    So long as he acts like he's sticking it to the liberals, the Mexicans, the Muslims, the smug elites, his followers will be happy within their media bubbles, consoling each other that no matter how bad things are, they would be so much worse under Clinton.  In fact, I.think part of the reason his actions seem so half assed is because he knows that it doesn't really matter if he wins or loses.  If he wins, yay, red meat for the base.  If he loses, he just has more grist for the outrage mill about how the Constitutional checks and balances are hamstringing him.  His only way to lose is if he ever, ever softens on sticking it to his followers' boogeymen.  He can deficit spend all day, flub his way through basic civics, and be disorganized as heel and no one will care.  But if he ever softens his rhetoric on the wall, or Muslims?  he's toast.","human_ref_B":"Not an insignificant portion of Trump voters were also Obama voters.  This doesn't necessarily disprove your initial thesis that Trump supporters are basing their support for him off of something other than policy but I would argue that Trump and Obama were two very different people and represented two very different things. These voters clearly aren't supporting Trump just because he's a republican\/conservative.   I would argue that Trump has been very inconsistent on just about everything except for two topics: Immigration and Economic Populism. A lot of rust belt\/working class voters see these two issues as being their most important issues with gun rights being a close third.   To relate that to the previous statistic, Barack Obama won the rust part partially by using the same kind of rhetoric as Trump (although in his own unique way). He talked about China in the same way that Trump did, he talked a lot about keeping jobs in the country and attempting to keep them from moving overseas. Obama was also did a lot of deportation (although they didn't advertise that too much). Furthermore the Obama administration said almost nothing about guns until Sandy Hook which was well after re-election.   When we see these areas in which Obama and Trump overlapped with these voters I think we start to paint a picture of not \"personality\" based voters but rather issues based voters. It would seem things are single or double issue voters who could care less about the skeletons in your closet, your race, gender or whatever. I think they want to feel that somebody is speaking\/fighting for them and that seems to mean tough talk on immigration and tough talk on free trade.  If Trump were unable to get anything done towards these objects or even reverse his position on any of them I argue you would see a significant slide in support from his core base of voters.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1496.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh35lbb","c_root_id_B":"dh3541u","created_at_utc_A":1493837912,"created_at_utc_B":1493837397,"score_A":52,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Not an insignificant portion of Trump voters were also Obama voters.  This doesn't necessarily disprove your initial thesis that Trump supporters are basing their support for him off of something other than policy but I would argue that Trump and Obama were two very different people and represented two very different things. These voters clearly aren't supporting Trump just because he's a republican\/conservative.   I would argue that Trump has been very inconsistent on just about everything except for two topics: Immigration and Economic Populism. A lot of rust belt\/working class voters see these two issues as being their most important issues with gun rights being a close third.   To relate that to the previous statistic, Barack Obama won the rust part partially by using the same kind of rhetoric as Trump (although in his own unique way). He talked about China in the same way that Trump did, he talked a lot about keeping jobs in the country and attempting to keep them from moving overseas. Obama was also did a lot of deportation (although they didn't advertise that too much). Furthermore the Obama administration said almost nothing about guns until Sandy Hook which was well after re-election.   When we see these areas in which Obama and Trump overlapped with these voters I think we start to paint a picture of not \"personality\" based voters but rather issues based voters. It would seem things are single or double issue voters who could care less about the skeletons in your closet, your race, gender or whatever. I think they want to feel that somebody is speaking\/fighting for them and that seems to mean tough talk on immigration and tough talk on free trade.  If Trump were unable to get anything done towards these objects or even reverse his position on any of them I argue you would see a significant slide in support from his core base of voters.","human_ref_B":"I am confused why you think this is special. The exact same thing could be said of Obama\/Clinton\/Reagan. Basically any popular charismatic president is judged more on rhetoric than actual policy. Obama did basically the exact opposite of almost everything he claimed to champion while campaigning, and then at the end of his presidency his supporters think he is one of the greatest presidents ever. I am sure Trump will go about the same.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":515.0,"score_ratio":2.7368421053}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2svue","c_root_id_B":"dh35lbb","created_at_utc_A":1493824337,"created_at_utc_B":1493837912,"score_A":15,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"People vote for an ideology. If you were to make the case to some of Trump's supporters that he has accomplished nothing that he promised to do, they would likely say that while that's not ideal, it's still acceptable because he still \"thinks\" the right way, and that nothing is still better than the alternative would have been.    > He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  None of that has anything to do with policy or campaign promises.  You're just venting about his supporters.  However, what I think is most troubling about what you've written here is that you seem to be implying that this is somehow unique to Trump's supporters, when even a glimpse at history will show that that is not the case. People are loyal to their \"team\", and will find a way to idolize whatever \"their guy\" does, while demonizing someone else for doing the same thing.   You point out that Trump's supporters are a lot more forgiving of the executive orders when it's Trump doing it and not Obama...but can you not say the exact same thing about the left? I'm suddenly hearing a lot of complaints about executive orders that I didn't hear from 2008 to 2016 from a lot of people I know.    When people say \"policies\", they mean his way of thinking. They mean they support him because they believe that he will represent them the way they want to be represented (or at least closer than anyone else will).","human_ref_B":"Not an insignificant portion of Trump voters were also Obama voters.  This doesn't necessarily disprove your initial thesis that Trump supporters are basing their support for him off of something other than policy but I would argue that Trump and Obama were two very different people and represented two very different things. These voters clearly aren't supporting Trump just because he's a republican\/conservative.   I would argue that Trump has been very inconsistent on just about everything except for two topics: Immigration and Economic Populism. A lot of rust belt\/working class voters see these two issues as being their most important issues with gun rights being a close third.   To relate that to the previous statistic, Barack Obama won the rust part partially by using the same kind of rhetoric as Trump (although in his own unique way). He talked about China in the same way that Trump did, he talked a lot about keeping jobs in the country and attempting to keep them from moving overseas. Obama was also did a lot of deportation (although they didn't advertise that too much). Furthermore the Obama administration said almost nothing about guns until Sandy Hook which was well after re-election.   When we see these areas in which Obama and Trump overlapped with these voters I think we start to paint a picture of not \"personality\" based voters but rather issues based voters. It would seem things are single or double issue voters who could care less about the skeletons in your closet, your race, gender or whatever. I think they want to feel that somebody is speaking\/fighting for them and that seems to mean tough talk on immigration and tough talk on free trade.  If Trump were unable to get anything done towards these objects or even reverse his position on any of them I argue you would see a significant slide in support from his core base of voters.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13575.0,"score_ratio":3.4666666667}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2uplk","c_root_id_B":"dh35lbb","created_at_utc_A":1493826341,"created_at_utc_B":1493837912,"score_A":13,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"I think your base premise is false, because it assumes that he hasn't already lost support. But he has lost support from people who previously supported him, particularly among independents. Just look at his approval ratings (although admittedly independents weren't his most die hard fans to begin with). He also appears to be losing support among white males.   Many of the people who voted for Trump didn't actually vote *for* him, but *against* Clinton. And now that she is largely out of the public spotlight, the fog has lifted and people are seeing him in his own right. People *really* do not like Hillary Clinton.   You also have to take into account that we are just past Trump's first 100 days. And people won't shift their views until his policy affects them personally. He hasn't had the time to affect many people personally yet. When he does affect them, they turn on him pretty fast.   He also doesn't have the excuse of democratic obstructionism to fall back on, and I think that will hurt him in the long run. He controls the house and senate, and when he can't get them in line or put meaningful policy through, it makes him look weak. He can try hide behind the excuse that the judicial system is persecuting him, but it's not just democratic leaning judges that are fighting him. He has very few things to hide behind right now. And I think when he fails to put out impactful policy, his supporters will start to notice.","human_ref_B":"Not an insignificant portion of Trump voters were also Obama voters.  This doesn't necessarily disprove your initial thesis that Trump supporters are basing their support for him off of something other than policy but I would argue that Trump and Obama were two very different people and represented two very different things. These voters clearly aren't supporting Trump just because he's a republican\/conservative.   I would argue that Trump has been very inconsistent on just about everything except for two topics: Immigration and Economic Populism. A lot of rust belt\/working class voters see these two issues as being their most important issues with gun rights being a close third.   To relate that to the previous statistic, Barack Obama won the rust part partially by using the same kind of rhetoric as Trump (although in his own unique way). He talked about China in the same way that Trump did, he talked a lot about keeping jobs in the country and attempting to keep them from moving overseas. Obama was also did a lot of deportation (although they didn't advertise that too much). Furthermore the Obama administration said almost nothing about guns until Sandy Hook which was well after re-election.   When we see these areas in which Obama and Trump overlapped with these voters I think we start to paint a picture of not \"personality\" based voters but rather issues based voters. It would seem things are single or double issue voters who could care less about the skeletons in your closet, your race, gender or whatever. I think they want to feel that somebody is speaking\/fighting for them and that seems to mean tough talk on immigration and tough talk on free trade.  If Trump were unable to get anything done towards these objects or even reverse his position on any of them I argue you would see a significant slide in support from his core base of voters.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11571.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh35lbb","c_root_id_B":"dh2syew","created_at_utc_A":1493837912,"created_at_utc_B":1493824413,"score_A":52,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Not an insignificant portion of Trump voters were also Obama voters.  This doesn't necessarily disprove your initial thesis that Trump supporters are basing their support for him off of something other than policy but I would argue that Trump and Obama were two very different people and represented two very different things. These voters clearly aren't supporting Trump just because he's a republican\/conservative.   I would argue that Trump has been very inconsistent on just about everything except for two topics: Immigration and Economic Populism. A lot of rust belt\/working class voters see these two issues as being their most important issues with gun rights being a close third.   To relate that to the previous statistic, Barack Obama won the rust part partially by using the same kind of rhetoric as Trump (although in his own unique way). He talked about China in the same way that Trump did, he talked a lot about keeping jobs in the country and attempting to keep them from moving overseas. Obama was also did a lot of deportation (although they didn't advertise that too much). Furthermore the Obama administration said almost nothing about guns until Sandy Hook which was well after re-election.   When we see these areas in which Obama and Trump overlapped with these voters I think we start to paint a picture of not \"personality\" based voters but rather issues based voters. It would seem things are single or double issue voters who could care less about the skeletons in your closet, your race, gender or whatever. I think they want to feel that somebody is speaking\/fighting for them and that seems to mean tough talk on immigration and tough talk on free trade.  If Trump were unable to get anything done towards these objects or even reverse his position on any of them I argue you would see a significant slide in support from his core base of voters.","human_ref_B":"As someone who liked what Trump said but is now disliking his actions, I can tell you that there are people out there who feel the same.  A lot of Trump's rhetoric appealed to me: Non-intervention, cut taxes, cut spending, repeal ACA, shrink government, limit lobbying, impose term limits, etc. Trump hasn't really followed through on those, but he is barely into his term, so we'll see. If he continues increasing military action, doesn't repeal ACA, increases spending, and spending tons on vacations\/golf, I will not support him, but...  ...the real issue is that if there is another Hillary Clinton running against him, then his supporters have virtually no other choice. At best, Trump is a Libertarian, at worst, he is Obama\/Clinton\/Bush 2.0, but it is too early to tell  for sure (but its definitely looking like Obama 2.0)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13499.0,"score_ratio":7.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2vr0m","c_root_id_B":"dh35lbb","created_at_utc_A":1493827462,"created_at_utc_B":1493837912,"score_A":4,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"Hasn't he already lost a good chunk of his support","human_ref_B":"Not an insignificant portion of Trump voters were also Obama voters.  This doesn't necessarily disprove your initial thesis that Trump supporters are basing their support for him off of something other than policy but I would argue that Trump and Obama were two very different people and represented two very different things. These voters clearly aren't supporting Trump just because he's a republican\/conservative.   I would argue that Trump has been very inconsistent on just about everything except for two topics: Immigration and Economic Populism. A lot of rust belt\/working class voters see these two issues as being their most important issues with gun rights being a close third.   To relate that to the previous statistic, Barack Obama won the rust part partially by using the same kind of rhetoric as Trump (although in his own unique way). He talked about China in the same way that Trump did, he talked a lot about keeping jobs in the country and attempting to keep them from moving overseas. Obama was also did a lot of deportation (although they didn't advertise that too much). Furthermore the Obama administration said almost nothing about guns until Sandy Hook which was well after re-election.   When we see these areas in which Obama and Trump overlapped with these voters I think we start to paint a picture of not \"personality\" based voters but rather issues based voters. It would seem things are single or double issue voters who could care less about the skeletons in your closet, your race, gender or whatever. I think they want to feel that somebody is speaking\/fighting for them and that seems to mean tough talk on immigration and tough talk on free trade.  If Trump were unable to get anything done towards these objects or even reverse his position on any of them I argue you would see a significant slide in support from his core base of voters.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10450.0,"score_ratio":13.0}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh34i4m","c_root_id_B":"dh35lbb","created_at_utc_A":1493836743,"created_at_utc_B":1493837912,"score_A":3,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"> I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  It's neither his policies nor his behavior. Trump never was the phenomenon, he was the result of it. It's not an ideological movement, but a revolt in the name of sovereignty, at a personal and national level. The Trump movement is not connected to an ideology (he's all over the place and moves from left to right on a whim). It's not about his behavior. It's a collection of citizens who feel excluded from the globalization trend and marginalized by it. They feel that they are connected only to one another through their towns, cities, states, and nation. As Americans. Globalization erodes the power and meaning of the nation state. American is a hodgepodge of a lot of (religions, identities, races) and they're fine with that. Trump isn't for anything other than the hazy idea of America, which means a lot of different things to different people. I didn't vote for him. But to cast the whole of his support as racist or hate driven doesn't address why he managed so much support in America and why populist candidates around the world are doing so well.","human_ref_B":"Not an insignificant portion of Trump voters were also Obama voters.  This doesn't necessarily disprove your initial thesis that Trump supporters are basing their support for him off of something other than policy but I would argue that Trump and Obama were two very different people and represented two very different things. These voters clearly aren't supporting Trump just because he's a republican\/conservative.   I would argue that Trump has been very inconsistent on just about everything except for two topics: Immigration and Economic Populism. A lot of rust belt\/working class voters see these two issues as being their most important issues with gun rights being a close third.   To relate that to the previous statistic, Barack Obama won the rust part partially by using the same kind of rhetoric as Trump (although in his own unique way). He talked about China in the same way that Trump did, he talked a lot about keeping jobs in the country and attempting to keep them from moving overseas. Obama was also did a lot of deportation (although they didn't advertise that too much). Furthermore the Obama administration said almost nothing about guns until Sandy Hook which was well after re-election.   When we see these areas in which Obama and Trump overlapped with these voters I think we start to paint a picture of not \"personality\" based voters but rather issues based voters. It would seem things are single or double issue voters who could care less about the skeletons in your closet, your race, gender or whatever. I think they want to feel that somebody is speaking\/fighting for them and that seems to mean tough talk on immigration and tough talk on free trade.  If Trump were unable to get anything done towards these objects or even reverse his position on any of them I argue you would see a significant slide in support from his core base of voters.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1169.0,"score_ratio":17.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh346zn","c_root_id_B":"dh2svue","created_at_utc_A":1493836416,"created_at_utc_B":1493824337,"score_A":24,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I think you're half right.  Trump didn't get elected because of what he promised to do ***FOR*** his followers.    He got elected because of what he promised to do ***TO*** their enemies.    So long as he acts like he's sticking it to the liberals, the Mexicans, the Muslims, the smug elites, his followers will be happy within their media bubbles, consoling each other that no matter how bad things are, they would be so much worse under Clinton.  In fact, I.think part of the reason his actions seem so half assed is because he knows that it doesn't really matter if he wins or loses.  If he wins, yay, red meat for the base.  If he loses, he just has more grist for the outrage mill about how the Constitutional checks and balances are hamstringing him.  His only way to lose is if he ever, ever softens on sticking it to his followers' boogeymen.  He can deficit spend all day, flub his way through basic civics, and be disorganized as heel and no one will care.  But if he ever softens his rhetoric on the wall, or Muslims?  he's toast.","human_ref_B":"People vote for an ideology. If you were to make the case to some of Trump's supporters that he has accomplished nothing that he promised to do, they would likely say that while that's not ideal, it's still acceptable because he still \"thinks\" the right way, and that nothing is still better than the alternative would have been.    > He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  None of that has anything to do with policy or campaign promises.  You're just venting about his supporters.  However, what I think is most troubling about what you've written here is that you seem to be implying that this is somehow unique to Trump's supporters, when even a glimpse at history will show that that is not the case. People are loyal to their \"team\", and will find a way to idolize whatever \"their guy\" does, while demonizing someone else for doing the same thing.   You point out that Trump's supporters are a lot more forgiving of the executive orders when it's Trump doing it and not Obama...but can you not say the exact same thing about the left? I'm suddenly hearing a lot of complaints about executive orders that I didn't hear from 2008 to 2016 from a lot of people I know.    When people say \"policies\", they mean his way of thinking. They mean they support him because they believe that he will represent them the way they want to be represented (or at least closer than anyone else will).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12079.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh346zn","c_root_id_B":"dh2uplk","created_at_utc_A":1493836416,"created_at_utc_B":1493826341,"score_A":24,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I think you're half right.  Trump didn't get elected because of what he promised to do ***FOR*** his followers.    He got elected because of what he promised to do ***TO*** their enemies.    So long as he acts like he's sticking it to the liberals, the Mexicans, the Muslims, the smug elites, his followers will be happy within their media bubbles, consoling each other that no matter how bad things are, they would be so much worse under Clinton.  In fact, I.think part of the reason his actions seem so half assed is because he knows that it doesn't really matter if he wins or loses.  If he wins, yay, red meat for the base.  If he loses, he just has more grist for the outrage mill about how the Constitutional checks and balances are hamstringing him.  His only way to lose is if he ever, ever softens on sticking it to his followers' boogeymen.  He can deficit spend all day, flub his way through basic civics, and be disorganized as heel and no one will care.  But if he ever softens his rhetoric on the wall, or Muslims?  he's toast.","human_ref_B":"I think your base premise is false, because it assumes that he hasn't already lost support. But he has lost support from people who previously supported him, particularly among independents. Just look at his approval ratings (although admittedly independents weren't his most die hard fans to begin with). He also appears to be losing support among white males.   Many of the people who voted for Trump didn't actually vote *for* him, but *against* Clinton. And now that she is largely out of the public spotlight, the fog has lifted and people are seeing him in his own right. People *really* do not like Hillary Clinton.   You also have to take into account that we are just past Trump's first 100 days. And people won't shift their views until his policy affects them personally. He hasn't had the time to affect many people personally yet. When he does affect them, they turn on him pretty fast.   He also doesn't have the excuse of democratic obstructionism to fall back on, and I think that will hurt him in the long run. He controls the house and senate, and when he can't get them in line or put meaningful policy through, it makes him look weak. He can try hide behind the excuse that the judicial system is persecuting him, but it's not just democratic leaning judges that are fighting him. He has very few things to hide behind right now. And I think when he fails to put out impactful policy, his supporters will start to notice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10075.0,"score_ratio":1.8461538462}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2syew","c_root_id_B":"dh346zn","created_at_utc_A":1493824413,"created_at_utc_B":1493836416,"score_A":7,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"As someone who liked what Trump said but is now disliking his actions, I can tell you that there are people out there who feel the same.  A lot of Trump's rhetoric appealed to me: Non-intervention, cut taxes, cut spending, repeal ACA, shrink government, limit lobbying, impose term limits, etc. Trump hasn't really followed through on those, but he is barely into his term, so we'll see. If he continues increasing military action, doesn't repeal ACA, increases spending, and spending tons on vacations\/golf, I will not support him, but...  ...the real issue is that if there is another Hillary Clinton running against him, then his supporters have virtually no other choice. At best, Trump is a Libertarian, at worst, he is Obama\/Clinton\/Bush 2.0, but it is too early to tell  for sure (but its definitely looking like Obama 2.0)","human_ref_B":"I think you're half right.  Trump didn't get elected because of what he promised to do ***FOR*** his followers.    He got elected because of what he promised to do ***TO*** their enemies.    So long as he acts like he's sticking it to the liberals, the Mexicans, the Muslims, the smug elites, his followers will be happy within their media bubbles, consoling each other that no matter how bad things are, they would be so much worse under Clinton.  In fact, I.think part of the reason his actions seem so half assed is because he knows that it doesn't really matter if he wins or loses.  If he wins, yay, red meat for the base.  If he loses, he just has more grist for the outrage mill about how the Constitutional checks and balances are hamstringing him.  His only way to lose is if he ever, ever softens on sticking it to his followers' boogeymen.  He can deficit spend all day, flub his way through basic civics, and be disorganized as heel and no one will care.  But if he ever softens his rhetoric on the wall, or Muslims?  he's toast.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12003.0,"score_ratio":3.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2vr0m","c_root_id_B":"dh346zn","created_at_utc_A":1493827462,"created_at_utc_B":1493836416,"score_A":4,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Hasn't he already lost a good chunk of his support","human_ref_B":"I think you're half right.  Trump didn't get elected because of what he promised to do ***FOR*** his followers.    He got elected because of what he promised to do ***TO*** their enemies.    So long as he acts like he's sticking it to the liberals, the Mexicans, the Muslims, the smug elites, his followers will be happy within their media bubbles, consoling each other that no matter how bad things are, they would be so much worse under Clinton.  In fact, I.think part of the reason his actions seem so half assed is because he knows that it doesn't really matter if he wins or loses.  If he wins, yay, red meat for the base.  If he loses, he just has more grist for the outrage mill about how the Constitutional checks and balances are hamstringing him.  His only way to lose is if he ever, ever softens on sticking it to his followers' boogeymen.  He can deficit spend all day, flub his way through basic civics, and be disorganized as heel and no one will care.  But if he ever softens his rhetoric on the wall, or Muslims?  he's toast.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8954.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh3541u","c_root_id_B":"dh2svue","created_at_utc_A":1493837397,"created_at_utc_B":1493824337,"score_A":19,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I am confused why you think this is special. The exact same thing could be said of Obama\/Clinton\/Reagan. Basically any popular charismatic president is judged more on rhetoric than actual policy. Obama did basically the exact opposite of almost everything he claimed to champion while campaigning, and then at the end of his presidency his supporters think he is one of the greatest presidents ever. I am sure Trump will go about the same.","human_ref_B":"People vote for an ideology. If you were to make the case to some of Trump's supporters that he has accomplished nothing that he promised to do, they would likely say that while that's not ideal, it's still acceptable because he still \"thinks\" the right way, and that nothing is still better than the alternative would have been.    > He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  None of that has anything to do with policy or campaign promises.  You're just venting about his supporters.  However, what I think is most troubling about what you've written here is that you seem to be implying that this is somehow unique to Trump's supporters, when even a glimpse at history will show that that is not the case. People are loyal to their \"team\", and will find a way to idolize whatever \"their guy\" does, while demonizing someone else for doing the same thing.   You point out that Trump's supporters are a lot more forgiving of the executive orders when it's Trump doing it and not Obama...but can you not say the exact same thing about the left? I'm suddenly hearing a lot of complaints about executive orders that I didn't hear from 2008 to 2016 from a lot of people I know.    When people say \"policies\", they mean his way of thinking. They mean they support him because they believe that he will represent them the way they want to be represented (or at least closer than anyone else will).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13060.0,"score_ratio":1.2666666667}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2uplk","c_root_id_B":"dh3541u","created_at_utc_A":1493826341,"created_at_utc_B":1493837397,"score_A":13,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"I think your base premise is false, because it assumes that he hasn't already lost support. But he has lost support from people who previously supported him, particularly among independents. Just look at his approval ratings (although admittedly independents weren't his most die hard fans to begin with). He also appears to be losing support among white males.   Many of the people who voted for Trump didn't actually vote *for* him, but *against* Clinton. And now that she is largely out of the public spotlight, the fog has lifted and people are seeing him in his own right. People *really* do not like Hillary Clinton.   You also have to take into account that we are just past Trump's first 100 days. And people won't shift their views until his policy affects them personally. He hasn't had the time to affect many people personally yet. When he does affect them, they turn on him pretty fast.   He also doesn't have the excuse of democratic obstructionism to fall back on, and I think that will hurt him in the long run. He controls the house and senate, and when he can't get them in line or put meaningful policy through, it makes him look weak. He can try hide behind the excuse that the judicial system is persecuting him, but it's not just democratic leaning judges that are fighting him. He has very few things to hide behind right now. And I think when he fails to put out impactful policy, his supporters will start to notice.","human_ref_B":"I am confused why you think this is special. The exact same thing could be said of Obama\/Clinton\/Reagan. Basically any popular charismatic president is judged more on rhetoric than actual policy. Obama did basically the exact opposite of almost everything he claimed to champion while campaigning, and then at the end of his presidency his supporters think he is one of the greatest presidents ever. I am sure Trump will go about the same.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11056.0,"score_ratio":1.4615384615}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh3541u","c_root_id_B":"dh2syew","created_at_utc_A":1493837397,"created_at_utc_B":1493824413,"score_A":19,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I am confused why you think this is special. The exact same thing could be said of Obama\/Clinton\/Reagan. Basically any popular charismatic president is judged more on rhetoric than actual policy. Obama did basically the exact opposite of almost everything he claimed to champion while campaigning, and then at the end of his presidency his supporters think he is one of the greatest presidents ever. I am sure Trump will go about the same.","human_ref_B":"As someone who liked what Trump said but is now disliking his actions, I can tell you that there are people out there who feel the same.  A lot of Trump's rhetoric appealed to me: Non-intervention, cut taxes, cut spending, repeal ACA, shrink government, limit lobbying, impose term limits, etc. Trump hasn't really followed through on those, but he is barely into his term, so we'll see. If he continues increasing military action, doesn't repeal ACA, increases spending, and spending tons on vacations\/golf, I will not support him, but...  ...the real issue is that if there is another Hillary Clinton running against him, then his supporters have virtually no other choice. At best, Trump is a Libertarian, at worst, he is Obama\/Clinton\/Bush 2.0, but it is too early to tell  for sure (but its definitely looking like Obama 2.0)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12984.0,"score_ratio":2.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2vr0m","c_root_id_B":"dh3541u","created_at_utc_A":1493827462,"created_at_utc_B":1493837397,"score_A":4,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Hasn't he already lost a good chunk of his support","human_ref_B":"I am confused why you think this is special. The exact same thing could be said of Obama\/Clinton\/Reagan. Basically any popular charismatic president is judged more on rhetoric than actual policy. Obama did basically the exact opposite of almost everything he claimed to champion while campaigning, and then at the end of his presidency his supporters think he is one of the greatest presidents ever. I am sure Trump will go about the same.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9935.0,"score_ratio":4.75}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh34i4m","c_root_id_B":"dh3541u","created_at_utc_A":1493836743,"created_at_utc_B":1493837397,"score_A":3,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"> I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  It's neither his policies nor his behavior. Trump never was the phenomenon, he was the result of it. It's not an ideological movement, but a revolt in the name of sovereignty, at a personal and national level. The Trump movement is not connected to an ideology (he's all over the place and moves from left to right on a whim). It's not about his behavior. It's a collection of citizens who feel excluded from the globalization trend and marginalized by it. They feel that they are connected only to one another through their towns, cities, states, and nation. As Americans. Globalization erodes the power and meaning of the nation state. American is a hodgepodge of a lot of (religions, identities, races) and they're fine with that. Trump isn't for anything other than the hazy idea of America, which means a lot of different things to different people. I didn't vote for him. But to cast the whole of his support as racist or hate driven doesn't address why he managed so much support in America and why populist candidates around the world are doing so well.","human_ref_B":"I am confused why you think this is special. The exact same thing could be said of Obama\/Clinton\/Reagan. Basically any popular charismatic president is judged more on rhetoric than actual policy. Obama did basically the exact opposite of almost everything he claimed to champion while campaigning, and then at the end of his presidency his supporters think he is one of the greatest presidents ever. I am sure Trump will go about the same.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":654.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2uplk","c_root_id_B":"dh2syew","created_at_utc_A":1493826341,"created_at_utc_B":1493824413,"score_A":13,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think your base premise is false, because it assumes that he hasn't already lost support. But he has lost support from people who previously supported him, particularly among independents. Just look at his approval ratings (although admittedly independents weren't his most die hard fans to begin with). He also appears to be losing support among white males.   Many of the people who voted for Trump didn't actually vote *for* him, but *against* Clinton. And now that she is largely out of the public spotlight, the fog has lifted and people are seeing him in his own right. People *really* do not like Hillary Clinton.   You also have to take into account that we are just past Trump's first 100 days. And people won't shift their views until his policy affects them personally. He hasn't had the time to affect many people personally yet. When he does affect them, they turn on him pretty fast.   He also doesn't have the excuse of democratic obstructionism to fall back on, and I think that will hurt him in the long run. He controls the house and senate, and when he can't get them in line or put meaningful policy through, it makes him look weak. He can try hide behind the excuse that the judicial system is persecuting him, but it's not just democratic leaning judges that are fighting him. He has very few things to hide behind right now. And I think when he fails to put out impactful policy, his supporters will start to notice.","human_ref_B":"As someone who liked what Trump said but is now disliking his actions, I can tell you that there are people out there who feel the same.  A lot of Trump's rhetoric appealed to me: Non-intervention, cut taxes, cut spending, repeal ACA, shrink government, limit lobbying, impose term limits, etc. Trump hasn't really followed through on those, but he is barely into his term, so we'll see. If he continues increasing military action, doesn't repeal ACA, increases spending, and spending tons on vacations\/golf, I will not support him, but...  ...the real issue is that if there is another Hillary Clinton running against him, then his supporters have virtually no other choice. At best, Trump is a Libertarian, at worst, he is Obama\/Clinton\/Bush 2.0, but it is too early to tell  for sure (but its definitely looking like Obama 2.0)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1928.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh3hq34","c_root_id_B":"dh2syew","created_at_utc_A":1493851405,"created_at_utc_B":1493824413,"score_A":10,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"By supporters, do you mean everyone who voted for him or what?   Because I think there are different tiers of people:  * People who voted for Trump because reasons (they won't vote Dem, they hate Hillary Clinton, they wanted to blow up the system, whatev) and not because Trump  * People who voted for Trump in the actual primaries too  * People who wear red MAGA hats and make being a Trumpster part of their actual identity   I'm not sure which of these people to address. Because they have very different mindsets, really.   I'm also not sure how many you think there are of each of these -- like do you think that everyone who voted for Trump actually supported Trump as Trump and not just \"the not Hillary\" or \"the Republican option\"?","human_ref_B":"As someone who liked what Trump said but is now disliking his actions, I can tell you that there are people out there who feel the same.  A lot of Trump's rhetoric appealed to me: Non-intervention, cut taxes, cut spending, repeal ACA, shrink government, limit lobbying, impose term limits, etc. Trump hasn't really followed through on those, but he is barely into his term, so we'll see. If he continues increasing military action, doesn't repeal ACA, increases spending, and spending tons on vacations\/golf, I will not support him, but...  ...the real issue is that if there is another Hillary Clinton running against him, then his supporters have virtually no other choice. At best, Trump is a Libertarian, at worst, he is Obama\/Clinton\/Bush 2.0, but it is too early to tell  for sure (but its definitely looking like Obama 2.0)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26992.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh2vr0m","c_root_id_B":"dh3hq34","created_at_utc_A":1493827462,"created_at_utc_B":1493851405,"score_A":4,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Hasn't he already lost a good chunk of his support","human_ref_B":"By supporters, do you mean everyone who voted for him or what?   Because I think there are different tiers of people:  * People who voted for Trump because reasons (they won't vote Dem, they hate Hillary Clinton, they wanted to blow up the system, whatev) and not because Trump  * People who voted for Trump in the actual primaries too  * People who wear red MAGA hats and make being a Trumpster part of their actual identity   I'm not sure which of these people to address. Because they have very different mindsets, really.   I'm also not sure how many you think there are of each of these -- like do you think that everyone who voted for Trump actually supported Trump as Trump and not just \"the not Hillary\" or \"the Republican option\"?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23943.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"690tz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have.  He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to \"drain the swamp\" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did.  I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dh3hq34","c_root_id_B":"dh34i4m","created_at_utc_A":1493851405,"created_at_utc_B":1493836743,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"By supporters, do you mean everyone who voted for him or what?   Because I think there are different tiers of people:  * People who voted for Trump because reasons (they won't vote Dem, they hate Hillary Clinton, they wanted to blow up the system, whatev) and not because Trump  * People who voted for Trump in the actual primaries too  * People who wear red MAGA hats and make being a Trumpster part of their actual identity   I'm not sure which of these people to address. Because they have very different mindsets, really.   I'm also not sure how many you think there are of each of these -- like do you think that everyone who voted for Trump actually supported Trump as Trump and not just \"the not Hillary\" or \"the Republican option\"?","human_ref_B":"> I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job.  It's neither his policies nor his behavior. Trump never was the phenomenon, he was the result of it. It's not an ideological movement, but a revolt in the name of sovereignty, at a personal and national level. The Trump movement is not connected to an ideology (he's all over the place and moves from left to right on a whim). It's not about his behavior. It's a collection of citizens who feel excluded from the globalization trend and marginalized by it. They feel that they are connected only to one another through their towns, cities, states, and nation. As Americans. Globalization erodes the power and meaning of the nation state. American is a hodgepodge of a lot of (religions, identities, races) and they're fine with that. Trump isn't for anything other than the hazy idea of America, which means a lot of different things to different people. I didn't vote for him. But to cast the whole of his support as racist or hate driven doesn't address why he managed so much support in America and why populist candidates around the world are doing so well.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14662.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"8thhpl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Real diversity is the acceptance of anyone, the current debate on diversity is demonstrative of the fact that, overall, we still judge everyone based on what is observable just by looking at them, our goals of diversity are fake, it's just to make things 'look' different. Recently when that woman from Apple resigned after saying that 12 white men in a room could be diverse because of their experiences I had a sudden epiphany for what may be wrong with conversations on diversity these days.  To me, the central issue is that our understanding of diversity is only 'observable' diversity.     I've lived and worked in many different cities, especially those with diverse populations such as Singapore, Doha, New York and London. One thing I've learned is to never assume anything about anyone. That blonde haired blue-eyed guy might be muslim, that calm and married with 3 kids desi lady might ride motorbikes lit on fire on the weekend (true story) - etc. Stereotypes might come from a basis of experience, but I've experienced so many exceptions that mine are a little bit more loosely held than they used to be.     My point is that if our only understanding of diversity is based on what can be initially observed about someone, then what the hell are we really talking about? This person has X colored skin, this person has Y disability, this person has Z political perspective or W religion as seen by an artifact on their body? What the heck? Aren't we better than that? I saw a Japanese woman with a fish bracelet the other day and I thought it was a Jesus fish, but she corrected me and said \"oh I just thought it was a cute fish.\" I think that this entire debate on diversity just shows how overall divided we still are, if people really understood diversity, they would stop talking about what people look like and focus on just ensuring and equal opportunity of success for everyone and combat destructive groups of any kind, regardless of their target.     From my experience, you could dream up the most incredibly diverse board of directors, representing somehow through mixed blood every minority race, religion, disability and personal diet and if they all have the same tactics in common, you'll have a LESS diverse output of strategy from that executive suite. Real diversity is accepting everyone, making things more colorful\/differently shaped is an attempt at a shortcut that ultimately doesn't make sense. I look forward to being proved utterly wrong and changing my mind, because if I'm right in my view, I don't see much hope for change.","c_root_id_A":"e17iys1","c_root_id_B":"e17j9dh","created_at_utc_A":1529845707,"created_at_utc_B":1529846135,"score_A":3,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"So, first of all, why don\u2019t you think you\u2019ll change your view? That\u2019s a preconception that can really hold you back. You should analyse the core of your views and the thinking behind it the same way you do opposing ones. Don\u2019t give your view any extra logic points because you came up with it.   Onto the point:   When it comes to certian careers it is important that diversity is a thing. This is to get different views and it helps companies watch over themselves. For example, this is important in tv show and movie casting.   Say, you are a casting director for a big movie. The casting notes don\u2019t mention anything about race. Race is not an important feature for this movie. Let\u2019s say you are white.   You will have a (somewhat) natural bias to white people. Because when you read the characters the imaginary person you build in your head will almost always resemble people you know closest. Which is usually yourself and friends and family. This can lean to you choosing a white actor because of the image your thought in your head not because of merit.   This isn\u2019t because the casting director is racist. And this doesn\u2019t mean all white actors are picked because of white casting directors. It is a natural psychlogical thing.   So, a company might want to ensure that black actors aren\u2019t being UNINTENTIONALLY discriminated agaisnt in the hiring process. They want every actor to be screened equally. So they want a black casting director as well to work alongside the white one. This is relevant for marketting, writing, and similar careers to ensure there is no unintentional biases.  With google it is a completly different issue (trust me the issue of women and STEM is never ending).   This is another unintentional thing. Let\u2019s say the boss is a man and the underlings are a mix of men and women. Let\u2019s say the underlings all perform the same. The boss gets told by his boss he needs to promote someone. Who does he promote? Well, in all likeliness, it is going to be a male underling. For much the same reasons as the white casting director.   With Google having a lot of issues with male superiors (and male underlings) devaluing women and not understanding unique problems towards women it is understandable why a woman wouldn\u2019t feel the most comfortable in a room full of 12 men trying to talk about a unique woman issue or talking about unintentional sexism.   Because no one wants to be called racist or sexist. And the casting director and the boss aren\u2019t racists or sexists. They have unintentional biases that it helps to have someone on the other end of that bias to be there to level and question them.   This is all about giving people equal opportunities. We can\u2019t ignore unintentional biases because that restricts the equal opportunities. We should know they happen and think of ways around them. And that would be having a casting director with different ethnicities and having the hiring process at a firm be a diverse process.","human_ref_B":"You're right that diversity of ideas is crucial. But what you're missing is that the way we are perceived by the world ultimately shapes our experiences, and our experiences play a role in the forming of our ideas.   Take Bernie Sanders' press secretary Symone Sanders for example. If you put her in a room with 11 white women who also worked on the campaign you're obviously going to find overlap in political beliefs. But by being a black woman, her experiences, and therefore her perspective, will vary in certain ways due to her unique experience. Despite working on the same campaign, the white women would not have experienced the same level of bias and discrimination that Symone did due to her race. And that alone will contribute to the diversity of experience\/ideas that she brings to the table despite their shared political beliefs.   More info on Symone's experience on the campaign trail: https:\/\/www.buzzfeed.com\/tamerragriffin\/symone-sanders-discusses-racism","labels":0,"seconds_difference":428.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"8thhpl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Real diversity is the acceptance of anyone, the current debate on diversity is demonstrative of the fact that, overall, we still judge everyone based on what is observable just by looking at them, our goals of diversity are fake, it's just to make things 'look' different. Recently when that woman from Apple resigned after saying that 12 white men in a room could be diverse because of their experiences I had a sudden epiphany for what may be wrong with conversations on diversity these days.  To me, the central issue is that our understanding of diversity is only 'observable' diversity.     I've lived and worked in many different cities, especially those with diverse populations such as Singapore, Doha, New York and London. One thing I've learned is to never assume anything about anyone. That blonde haired blue-eyed guy might be muslim, that calm and married with 3 kids desi lady might ride motorbikes lit on fire on the weekend (true story) - etc. Stereotypes might come from a basis of experience, but I've experienced so many exceptions that mine are a little bit more loosely held than they used to be.     My point is that if our only understanding of diversity is based on what can be initially observed about someone, then what the hell are we really talking about? This person has X colored skin, this person has Y disability, this person has Z political perspective or W religion as seen by an artifact on their body? What the heck? Aren't we better than that? I saw a Japanese woman with a fish bracelet the other day and I thought it was a Jesus fish, but she corrected me and said \"oh I just thought it was a cute fish.\" I think that this entire debate on diversity just shows how overall divided we still are, if people really understood diversity, they would stop talking about what people look like and focus on just ensuring and equal opportunity of success for everyone and combat destructive groups of any kind, regardless of their target.     From my experience, you could dream up the most incredibly diverse board of directors, representing somehow through mixed blood every minority race, religion, disability and personal diet and if they all have the same tactics in common, you'll have a LESS diverse output of strategy from that executive suite. Real diversity is accepting everyone, making things more colorful\/differently shaped is an attempt at a shortcut that ultimately doesn't make sense. I look forward to being proved utterly wrong and changing my mind, because if I'm right in my view, I don't see much hope for change.","c_root_id_A":"e17iys1","c_root_id_B":"e17k0zb","created_at_utc_A":1529845707,"created_at_utc_B":1529847178,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"So, first of all, why don\u2019t you think you\u2019ll change your view? That\u2019s a preconception that can really hold you back. You should analyse the core of your views and the thinking behind it the same way you do opposing ones. Don\u2019t give your view any extra logic points because you came up with it.   Onto the point:   When it comes to certian careers it is important that diversity is a thing. This is to get different views and it helps companies watch over themselves. For example, this is important in tv show and movie casting.   Say, you are a casting director for a big movie. The casting notes don\u2019t mention anything about race. Race is not an important feature for this movie. Let\u2019s say you are white.   You will have a (somewhat) natural bias to white people. Because when you read the characters the imaginary person you build in your head will almost always resemble people you know closest. Which is usually yourself and friends and family. This can lean to you choosing a white actor because of the image your thought in your head not because of merit.   This isn\u2019t because the casting director is racist. And this doesn\u2019t mean all white actors are picked because of white casting directors. It is a natural psychlogical thing.   So, a company might want to ensure that black actors aren\u2019t being UNINTENTIONALLY discriminated agaisnt in the hiring process. They want every actor to be screened equally. So they want a black casting director as well to work alongside the white one. This is relevant for marketting, writing, and similar careers to ensure there is no unintentional biases.  With google it is a completly different issue (trust me the issue of women and STEM is never ending).   This is another unintentional thing. Let\u2019s say the boss is a man and the underlings are a mix of men and women. Let\u2019s say the underlings all perform the same. The boss gets told by his boss he needs to promote someone. Who does he promote? Well, in all likeliness, it is going to be a male underling. For much the same reasons as the white casting director.   With Google having a lot of issues with male superiors (and male underlings) devaluing women and not understanding unique problems towards women it is understandable why a woman wouldn\u2019t feel the most comfortable in a room full of 12 men trying to talk about a unique woman issue or talking about unintentional sexism.   Because no one wants to be called racist or sexist. And the casting director and the boss aren\u2019t racists or sexists. They have unintentional biases that it helps to have someone on the other end of that bias to be there to level and question them.   This is all about giving people equal opportunities. We can\u2019t ignore unintentional biases because that restricts the equal opportunities. We should know they happen and think of ways around them. And that would be having a casting director with different ethnicities and having the hiring process at a firm be a diverse process.","human_ref_B":"If we followed your logic here, what we'd have is all white male board of directors made up of people with different hobbies.  Diversity includes the desire to address _prejudice_ and to my knowledge it's difficult to find a historical bias in relation to access to boards of directors based on one being a lover of golf vs. model railroads.  Your position seems detached from the _reason_ we talk about diversity on cultural and visual level - because the world has a history (and a present!) of judging people, categorizing them and granting or preventing access for them based upon those cultural and visual elements of people. If we turn \"diversity\" into absolutely any dimension of difference then we're forgetting that the goal of diversity is rooted in address  _an actual problem_ in our society and that  problem itself involves bias towards \"the visual\".   Denying  this bias would do no good, and it seems disingenuous to me to acknowledge and respond to that bias and have doing so result in saying we're calling out skin color as \"important\".  Of course it's important - because  people are racist!  You know what they aren't?  Biased against people who ride motorcycles that  are on fire!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1471.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"7zr170","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: If it's acceptable to 'kick your kid out' of the home because they won't grow up, then it should also be acceptable to opt out of taking care of your parents if they are making bad decisions This has to do with my dad. I feel like I should be able to opt out of having to take care of him because of his poor decision making. I don't mean from a legal perspective really, more that this should be a culturally accepted and normal thing to do.  He is mentally 'all there', but just chooses not to take care of himself or put much effort into addressing his medical issues. He's being an inconsiderate asshole for expecting me to be there for him, but then not doing anything to reduce the chances that I'll need to drop everything and be there for him.  - He is a type II diabetic, but refuses to change his diet in order to reduce\/eliminate the symptoms of diabetes  - He has problems with balance (because of the diabetes), but refuses to use a walker. This causes him to have bad falls and end up in the hospital a lot  - He refuses to follow any of the doctor's advice that has anything to do with diet or exercises  Following the same logic of kicking your kid out of the house because they refuse to be an adult, I think kids should be able to forfeit any responsibility to their parents if those parents choose to make poor decisions and won't take the basic steps necessary in order to care for themselves.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duq3dsv","c_root_id_B":"duq3l57","created_at_utc_A":1519417207,"created_at_utc_B":1519417394,"score_A":58,"score_B":231,"human_ref_A":"I don't think people should be obligated to care for their parents under most circumstances, including yours, but I find the parallel you're drawing to be a bit off.   Parents kick their children out after 18 years (or more) of care and trying to teach them how to adult. At least eghteen years of effort and responsibility before they wash their hands of a person who should be able to care fully for themselves. If your father can't fully care for himself, the comparison is inapt. If you haven't put the years effort and responsibility into the relationship before bailing the comparison is inapt.","human_ref_B":"Both of these actions *are* considered culturally acceptable, though extreme, behaviors. Generally, I think we expect people to go above an beyond and make sacrifices for their family--more than we would expect them to do for friends--but not when it is disastrous to their own life.   What you might not be able to do is convince the person you're abandoning that it's the right decision.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":187.0,"score_ratio":3.9827586207}
+{"post_id":"7zr170","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: If it's acceptable to 'kick your kid out' of the home because they won't grow up, then it should also be acceptable to opt out of taking care of your parents if they are making bad decisions This has to do with my dad. I feel like I should be able to opt out of having to take care of him because of his poor decision making. I don't mean from a legal perspective really, more that this should be a culturally accepted and normal thing to do.  He is mentally 'all there', but just chooses not to take care of himself or put much effort into addressing his medical issues. He's being an inconsiderate asshole for expecting me to be there for him, but then not doing anything to reduce the chances that I'll need to drop everything and be there for him.  - He is a type II diabetic, but refuses to change his diet in order to reduce\/eliminate the symptoms of diabetes  - He has problems with balance (because of the diabetes), but refuses to use a walker. This causes him to have bad falls and end up in the hospital a lot  - He refuses to follow any of the doctor's advice that has anything to do with diet or exercises  Following the same logic of kicking your kid out of the house because they refuse to be an adult, I think kids should be able to forfeit any responsibility to their parents if those parents choose to make poor decisions and won't take the basic steps necessary in order to care for themselves.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duqs8n1","c_root_id_B":"duq3tap","created_at_utc_A":1519445175,"created_at_utc_B":1519417600,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So your conditional has a false antecedent. I would agree that if the false antecedent (you dont have to be a good parent) were true, then the consequent would follow (you don't have to be a good son\/daughter). But as it happens the antecedent is false, and so is the assertion that children don't have responsibilities in respect to their parents.","human_ref_B":"being\/acting like an adult is not the default requirement for staying in a house, as far as I know.  you can stop trying to nursemaid your father against his will, and I wouldn't even use a word as strong as \"forfeiture\" to describe it. but the parent-child relationship is inherently unidirectional in many ways. i'm guessing he owns the house, and so he's entitled to a level of independence, even such that is harmful to himself. the repeated preventable hospitalizations sounds quite difficult, though.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27575.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"7zr170","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: If it's acceptable to 'kick your kid out' of the home because they won't grow up, then it should also be acceptable to opt out of taking care of your parents if they are making bad decisions This has to do with my dad. I feel like I should be able to opt out of having to take care of him because of his poor decision making. I don't mean from a legal perspective really, more that this should be a culturally accepted and normal thing to do.  He is mentally 'all there', but just chooses not to take care of himself or put much effort into addressing his medical issues. He's being an inconsiderate asshole for expecting me to be there for him, but then not doing anything to reduce the chances that I'll need to drop everything and be there for him.  - He is a type II diabetic, but refuses to change his diet in order to reduce\/eliminate the symptoms of diabetes  - He has problems with balance (because of the diabetes), but refuses to use a walker. This causes him to have bad falls and end up in the hospital a lot  - He refuses to follow any of the doctor's advice that has anything to do with diet or exercises  Following the same logic of kicking your kid out of the house because they refuse to be an adult, I think kids should be able to forfeit any responsibility to their parents if those parents choose to make poor decisions and won't take the basic steps necessary in order to care for themselves.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duqs8n1","c_root_id_B":"duqppmi","created_at_utc_A":1519445175,"created_at_utc_B":1519442005,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So your conditional has a false antecedent. I would agree that if the false antecedent (you dont have to be a good parent) were true, then the consequent would follow (you don't have to be a good son\/daughter). But as it happens the antecedent is false, and so is the assertion that children don't have responsibilities in respect to their parents.","human_ref_B":"But what if the child who is being labeled lazy actually has a disability that is being ignored? What if the parents have made no effort to teach their progeny to be independent?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3170.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"7zr170","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: If it's acceptable to 'kick your kid out' of the home because they won't grow up, then it should also be acceptable to opt out of taking care of your parents if they are making bad decisions This has to do with my dad. I feel like I should be able to opt out of having to take care of him because of his poor decision making. I don't mean from a legal perspective really, more that this should be a culturally accepted and normal thing to do.  He is mentally 'all there', but just chooses not to take care of himself or put much effort into addressing his medical issues. He's being an inconsiderate asshole for expecting me to be there for him, but then not doing anything to reduce the chances that I'll need to drop everything and be there for him.  - He is a type II diabetic, but refuses to change his diet in order to reduce\/eliminate the symptoms of diabetes  - He has problems with balance (because of the diabetes), but refuses to use a walker. This causes him to have bad falls and end up in the hospital a lot  - He refuses to follow any of the doctor's advice that has anything to do with diet or exercises  Following the same logic of kicking your kid out of the house because they refuse to be an adult, I think kids should be able to forfeit any responsibility to their parents if those parents choose to make poor decisions and won't take the basic steps necessary in order to care for themselves.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duqw2f7","c_root_id_B":"duqvyup","created_at_utc_A":1519450792,"created_at_utc_B":1519450632,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I don't believe people should have children under the assumption they're going to take care of them. I think a person should evaluate why they feel so inadequate that they need to have children just to take care of them. However, I do believe parents have a moral obligation to help their children out and become successful and well adjusted adults. It was their selfish decision to bring children into this world and I believe it's their obligation to make sure they do what they can to ensure their success.   No one is forcing you or them to have kids btw.  Can I receive a static award for agreeing?","human_ref_B":"I'm a father and a son, so maybe this will provide you some perspective.   I believe firmly, that at the beginning of life and at the end of life we all need the care of others.   My older son is 6 and makes many stupid decisions which is why I'm there and make sure that the consequences are limited. I've spent the last 6 years making sure of this and I'll probably be spending the next 20 that way too. As he ages he'll have more and more control over his decisions and the corresponding consequences. At some point they are his decisions and his consequences. But: no matter how stupid his decision, I'll make sure that the consequences don't ruin his life.  That doesn't mean making the decisions for him or shielding him from all the consequences. He won't learn to be his own man grown up otherwise.  As your dad approaches his end - however long that is away - he'll need the kind of support he hopefully gave to you as a kid. So there is a slow process of taking on responsibility for your father just as he relinquished it to you.   Like my son, that doesn't mean shielding him from all the consequences of his decisions, depending on where in his aging cycle he is.   The question you should be asking yourself is what you need to do for him to make the right decisions. He's obviously refusing to acknowledge the impact aging has on him. In my view that would be like acknowledging ones own mortality. I've seen people acting that way simply because they refuse to face an uncomfortable truth.   I don't have good answers what might help as I don't know your father. Maybe not helping him for a change might do. Maybe discussing it with him works although all garnets struggle with taking advice from their sons. Be creative, talk it through with others in the family and keep looking for a way to explain things to him.   In case of my step dad it took the demetia of his mother to rattle his cage enough to stay thinking about it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":160.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"7zr170","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: If it's acceptable to 'kick your kid out' of the home because they won't grow up, then it should also be acceptable to opt out of taking care of your parents if they are making bad decisions This has to do with my dad. I feel like I should be able to opt out of having to take care of him because of his poor decision making. I don't mean from a legal perspective really, more that this should be a culturally accepted and normal thing to do.  He is mentally 'all there', but just chooses not to take care of himself or put much effort into addressing his medical issues. He's being an inconsiderate asshole for expecting me to be there for him, but then not doing anything to reduce the chances that I'll need to drop everything and be there for him.  - He is a type II diabetic, but refuses to change his diet in order to reduce\/eliminate the symptoms of diabetes  - He has problems with balance (because of the diabetes), but refuses to use a walker. This causes him to have bad falls and end up in the hospital a lot  - He refuses to follow any of the doctor's advice that has anything to do with diet or exercises  Following the same logic of kicking your kid out of the house because they refuse to be an adult, I think kids should be able to forfeit any responsibility to their parents if those parents choose to make poor decisions and won't take the basic steps necessary in order to care for themselves.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duq3tap","c_root_id_B":"duqw2f7","created_at_utc_A":1519417600,"created_at_utc_B":1519450792,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"being\/acting like an adult is not the default requirement for staying in a house, as far as I know.  you can stop trying to nursemaid your father against his will, and I wouldn't even use a word as strong as \"forfeiture\" to describe it. but the parent-child relationship is inherently unidirectional in many ways. i'm guessing he owns the house, and so he's entitled to a level of independence, even such that is harmful to himself. the repeated preventable hospitalizations sounds quite difficult, though.","human_ref_B":"I don't believe people should have children under the assumption they're going to take care of them. I think a person should evaluate why they feel so inadequate that they need to have children just to take care of them. However, I do believe parents have a moral obligation to help their children out and become successful and well adjusted adults. It was their selfish decision to bring children into this world and I believe it's their obligation to make sure they do what they can to ensure their success.   No one is forcing you or them to have kids btw.  Can I receive a static award for agreeing?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33192.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"7zr170","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: If it's acceptable to 'kick your kid out' of the home because they won't grow up, then it should also be acceptable to opt out of taking care of your parents if they are making bad decisions This has to do with my dad. I feel like I should be able to opt out of having to take care of him because of his poor decision making. I don't mean from a legal perspective really, more that this should be a culturally accepted and normal thing to do.  He is mentally 'all there', but just chooses not to take care of himself or put much effort into addressing his medical issues. He's being an inconsiderate asshole for expecting me to be there for him, but then not doing anything to reduce the chances that I'll need to drop everything and be there for him.  - He is a type II diabetic, but refuses to change his diet in order to reduce\/eliminate the symptoms of diabetes  - He has problems with balance (because of the diabetes), but refuses to use a walker. This causes him to have bad falls and end up in the hospital a lot  - He refuses to follow any of the doctor's advice that has anything to do with diet or exercises  Following the same logic of kicking your kid out of the house because they refuse to be an adult, I think kids should be able to forfeit any responsibility to their parents if those parents choose to make poor decisions and won't take the basic steps necessary in order to care for themselves.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duqppmi","c_root_id_B":"duqw2f7","created_at_utc_A":1519442005,"created_at_utc_B":1519450792,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"But what if the child who is being labeled lazy actually has a disability that is being ignored? What if the parents have made no effort to teach their progeny to be independent?","human_ref_B":"I don't believe people should have children under the assumption they're going to take care of them. I think a person should evaluate why they feel so inadequate that they need to have children just to take care of them. However, I do believe parents have a moral obligation to help their children out and become successful and well adjusted adults. It was their selfish decision to bring children into this world and I believe it's their obligation to make sure they do what they can to ensure their success.   No one is forcing you or them to have kids btw.  Can I receive a static award for agreeing?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8787.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"7zr170","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: If it's acceptable to 'kick your kid out' of the home because they won't grow up, then it should also be acceptable to opt out of taking care of your parents if they are making bad decisions This has to do with my dad. I feel like I should be able to opt out of having to take care of him because of his poor decision making. I don't mean from a legal perspective really, more that this should be a culturally accepted and normal thing to do.  He is mentally 'all there', but just chooses not to take care of himself or put much effort into addressing his medical issues. He's being an inconsiderate asshole for expecting me to be there for him, but then not doing anything to reduce the chances that I'll need to drop everything and be there for him.  - He is a type II diabetic, but refuses to change his diet in order to reduce\/eliminate the symptoms of diabetes  - He has problems with balance (because of the diabetes), but refuses to use a walker. This causes him to have bad falls and end up in the hospital a lot  - He refuses to follow any of the doctor's advice that has anything to do with diet or exercises  Following the same logic of kicking your kid out of the house because they refuse to be an adult, I think kids should be able to forfeit any responsibility to their parents if those parents choose to make poor decisions and won't take the basic steps necessary in order to care for themselves.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duqwq9o","c_root_id_B":"duq3tap","created_at_utc_A":1519451896,"created_at_utc_B":1519417600,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Never mind the parallels between kicking out a self-destructive teen; I think theres a simpler and more natural metric which I choose to use to live my life -   I usually won't spend more energy trying to help someone than they will spend on themselves.  If your dad wants to take risks, then, as an adult he has chosen to live with those risks, and you shouldn't interrupt or disrupt your life to save him from his own choices.  Don't burn your own bones to save somebody from something they don't want to be saved from.  I'm not trying to change your outcome, I'm just trying to change the perspective you have on it. I have a bit of a problem with the parallels between kicking out a rebellious teen and cutting off support for a rebellious parent, which is mostly that these events can occur twenty years appart, which, in my experience(im thirty) is more than enough time for our whole society to change and for a person to become a completely different person. Your family is still your family, but sins so far in the past should stay in the past. Interact with people as the person they are *this year*.  and yaknow, maybe people haven't changed, in which case those  ancient datapoints are still valid, but you need recent datapoints to confirm the trend.","human_ref_B":"being\/acting like an adult is not the default requirement for staying in a house, as far as I know.  you can stop trying to nursemaid your father against his will, and I wouldn't even use a word as strong as \"forfeiture\" to describe it. but the parent-child relationship is inherently unidirectional in many ways. i'm guessing he owns the house, and so he's entitled to a level of independence, even such that is harmful to himself. the repeated preventable hospitalizations sounds quite difficult, though.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34296.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"7zr170","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: If it's acceptable to 'kick your kid out' of the home because they won't grow up, then it should also be acceptable to opt out of taking care of your parents if they are making bad decisions This has to do with my dad. I feel like I should be able to opt out of having to take care of him because of his poor decision making. I don't mean from a legal perspective really, more that this should be a culturally accepted and normal thing to do.  He is mentally 'all there', but just chooses not to take care of himself or put much effort into addressing his medical issues. He's being an inconsiderate asshole for expecting me to be there for him, but then not doing anything to reduce the chances that I'll need to drop everything and be there for him.  - He is a type II diabetic, but refuses to change his diet in order to reduce\/eliminate the symptoms of diabetes  - He has problems with balance (because of the diabetes), but refuses to use a walker. This causes him to have bad falls and end up in the hospital a lot  - He refuses to follow any of the doctor's advice that has anything to do with diet or exercises  Following the same logic of kicking your kid out of the house because they refuse to be an adult, I think kids should be able to forfeit any responsibility to their parents if those parents choose to make poor decisions and won't take the basic steps necessary in order to care for themselves.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duqppmi","c_root_id_B":"duqwq9o","created_at_utc_A":1519442005,"created_at_utc_B":1519451896,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"But what if the child who is being labeled lazy actually has a disability that is being ignored? What if the parents have made no effort to teach their progeny to be independent?","human_ref_B":"Never mind the parallels between kicking out a self-destructive teen; I think theres a simpler and more natural metric which I choose to use to live my life -   I usually won't spend more energy trying to help someone than they will spend on themselves.  If your dad wants to take risks, then, as an adult he has chosen to live with those risks, and you shouldn't interrupt or disrupt your life to save him from his own choices.  Don't burn your own bones to save somebody from something they don't want to be saved from.  I'm not trying to change your outcome, I'm just trying to change the perspective you have on it. I have a bit of a problem with the parallels between kicking out a rebellious teen and cutting off support for a rebellious parent, which is mostly that these events can occur twenty years appart, which, in my experience(im thirty) is more than enough time for our whole society to change and for a person to become a completely different person. Your family is still your family, but sins so far in the past should stay in the past. Interact with people as the person they are *this year*.  and yaknow, maybe people haven't changed, in which case those  ancient datapoints are still valid, but you need recent datapoints to confirm the trend.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9891.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"7zr170","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: If it's acceptable to 'kick your kid out' of the home because they won't grow up, then it should also be acceptable to opt out of taking care of your parents if they are making bad decisions This has to do with my dad. I feel like I should be able to opt out of having to take care of him because of his poor decision making. I don't mean from a legal perspective really, more that this should be a culturally accepted and normal thing to do.  He is mentally 'all there', but just chooses not to take care of himself or put much effort into addressing his medical issues. He's being an inconsiderate asshole for expecting me to be there for him, but then not doing anything to reduce the chances that I'll need to drop everything and be there for him.  - He is a type II diabetic, but refuses to change his diet in order to reduce\/eliminate the symptoms of diabetes  - He has problems with balance (because of the diabetes), but refuses to use a walker. This causes him to have bad falls and end up in the hospital a lot  - He refuses to follow any of the doctor's advice that has anything to do with diet or exercises  Following the same logic of kicking your kid out of the house because they refuse to be an adult, I think kids should be able to forfeit any responsibility to their parents if those parents choose to make poor decisions and won't take the basic steps necessary in order to care for themselves.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duq3tap","c_root_id_B":"duqvyup","created_at_utc_A":1519417600,"created_at_utc_B":1519450632,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"being\/acting like an adult is not the default requirement for staying in a house, as far as I know.  you can stop trying to nursemaid your father against his will, and I wouldn't even use a word as strong as \"forfeiture\" to describe it. but the parent-child relationship is inherently unidirectional in many ways. i'm guessing he owns the house, and so he's entitled to a level of independence, even such that is harmful to himself. the repeated preventable hospitalizations sounds quite difficult, though.","human_ref_B":"I'm a father and a son, so maybe this will provide you some perspective.   I believe firmly, that at the beginning of life and at the end of life we all need the care of others.   My older son is 6 and makes many stupid decisions which is why I'm there and make sure that the consequences are limited. I've spent the last 6 years making sure of this and I'll probably be spending the next 20 that way too. As he ages he'll have more and more control over his decisions and the corresponding consequences. At some point they are his decisions and his consequences. But: no matter how stupid his decision, I'll make sure that the consequences don't ruin his life.  That doesn't mean making the decisions for him or shielding him from all the consequences. He won't learn to be his own man grown up otherwise.  As your dad approaches his end - however long that is away - he'll need the kind of support he hopefully gave to you as a kid. So there is a slow process of taking on responsibility for your father just as he relinquished it to you.   Like my son, that doesn't mean shielding him from all the consequences of his decisions, depending on where in his aging cycle he is.   The question you should be asking yourself is what you need to do for him to make the right decisions. He's obviously refusing to acknowledge the impact aging has on him. In my view that would be like acknowledging ones own mortality. I've seen people acting that way simply because they refuse to face an uncomfortable truth.   I don't have good answers what might help as I don't know your father. Maybe not helping him for a change might do. Maybe discussing it with him works although all garnets struggle with taking advice from their sons. Be creative, talk it through with others in the family and keep looking for a way to explain things to him.   In case of my step dad it took the demetia of his mother to rattle his cage enough to stay thinking about it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33032.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"7zr170","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: If it's acceptable to 'kick your kid out' of the home because they won't grow up, then it should also be acceptable to opt out of taking care of your parents if they are making bad decisions This has to do with my dad. I feel like I should be able to opt out of having to take care of him because of his poor decision making. I don't mean from a legal perspective really, more that this should be a culturally accepted and normal thing to do.  He is mentally 'all there', but just chooses not to take care of himself or put much effort into addressing his medical issues. He's being an inconsiderate asshole for expecting me to be there for him, but then not doing anything to reduce the chances that I'll need to drop everything and be there for him.  - He is a type II diabetic, but refuses to change his diet in order to reduce\/eliminate the symptoms of diabetes  - He has problems with balance (because of the diabetes), but refuses to use a walker. This causes him to have bad falls and end up in the hospital a lot  - He refuses to follow any of the doctor's advice that has anything to do with diet or exercises  Following the same logic of kicking your kid out of the house because they refuse to be an adult, I think kids should be able to forfeit any responsibility to their parents if those parents choose to make poor decisions and won't take the basic steps necessary in order to care for themselves.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duqvyup","c_root_id_B":"duqppmi","created_at_utc_A":1519450632,"created_at_utc_B":1519442005,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm a father and a son, so maybe this will provide you some perspective.   I believe firmly, that at the beginning of life and at the end of life we all need the care of others.   My older son is 6 and makes many stupid decisions which is why I'm there and make sure that the consequences are limited. I've spent the last 6 years making sure of this and I'll probably be spending the next 20 that way too. As he ages he'll have more and more control over his decisions and the corresponding consequences. At some point they are his decisions and his consequences. But: no matter how stupid his decision, I'll make sure that the consequences don't ruin his life.  That doesn't mean making the decisions for him or shielding him from all the consequences. He won't learn to be his own man grown up otherwise.  As your dad approaches his end - however long that is away - he'll need the kind of support he hopefully gave to you as a kid. So there is a slow process of taking on responsibility for your father just as he relinquished it to you.   Like my son, that doesn't mean shielding him from all the consequences of his decisions, depending on where in his aging cycle he is.   The question you should be asking yourself is what you need to do for him to make the right decisions. He's obviously refusing to acknowledge the impact aging has on him. In my view that would be like acknowledging ones own mortality. I've seen people acting that way simply because they refuse to face an uncomfortable truth.   I don't have good answers what might help as I don't know your father. Maybe not helping him for a change might do. Maybe discussing it with him works although all garnets struggle with taking advice from their sons. Be creative, talk it through with others in the family and keep looking for a way to explain things to him.   In case of my step dad it took the demetia of his mother to rattle his cage enough to stay thinking about it.","human_ref_B":"But what if the child who is being labeled lazy actually has a disability that is being ignored? What if the parents have made no effort to teach their progeny to be independent?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8627.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"hwrsmr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: If the Simpsons, Big Mouth & Family Guy will no longer have white people voicing non white characters, Bob\u2019s Burgers should no longer have males voicing female characters. So some voice actors & actresses have stepped away from some of their jobs of voicing fictional characters that are not the same ethnicity of them. The Simpson\u2019s came under scrutiny for a while with one of their characters. Other popular shows had actors step down on their own.  One of the reasons given for the character on the Simpson\u2019s being removed was that the character was causing harm by reinforcing negative stereotypes.   This got me thinking... if it is not socially okay for white people to play non what characters, why should it be okay for men to play women or even vice versa.  In the US there is a history of blacks not being allowed to perform on stage and parts were taken by white people in black race. Then even worse, minstrel shows solidly portrayed the negatives about black people as white people parades around in black face.  There is also history to women not being allowed to perform the same as men!  Women were not allowed on stage in many cultures. Prepubescent boys or castrated adolescences were often cast to play roles of women on stage.  Bob\u2019s Burgers is a show that has several men voice women characters. Two main female characters of the family are voiced by men, four reoccurring female characters at the school are voiced by men and two other reoccurring male characters are voiced by women.   If there is an racial issue going on in the other shows with white people playing non white characters, why is it not seen as a sexist issue with men playing women? Do you think any of those men are doing harm as the white voice actor did for the Simpson\u2019s character? Why should playing someone of a different sex be okay versus someone of a different race?","c_root_id_A":"fz1x976","c_root_id_B":"fz1u0vf","created_at_utc_A":1595560612,"created_at_utc_B":1595558720,"score_A":23,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Here\u2019s the best I\u2019ve got: Hollywood has a way of making people of color invisible. They get fewer roles and have fewer roles available to them. If a character is black it is rarely because the best actor for the character was black, it\u2019s because the character was written to be black only. This is a big problem, but at least black people are playing black characters. Cartoons have more leeway to have characters of color. That\u2019s why Apu is the character to \u201cstart\u201d the conversation. Because he started as a characeture (can\u2019t spell it, I give up) and became a well rounded character. For YEARS he was the most sophisticated Indian character on TV. Because he was on a cartoon with a thousand characters, the Simpsons could experiment with characters of color on a show for the masses when many shows for the masses didn\u2019t have them. But he\u2019s played by a white guy, because it\u2019s a cartoon. So there\u2019s a conflict between the representation that the character provided and the whitewashing caused by the character.   Now, compare that with women in animation: almost all women are played by women. Bob\u2019s burgers is the exception, not the rule. Because it\u2019s the exception, it\u2019s less problematic, because unlike actors of color, there are a lot of characters for women in Hollywood and more so in animation. Bart, possibly one of the most well known animated characters in the United States, is played by a woman. I see the double standard you\u2019re talking about, but the problematic part of gender bent casting in cartoons isn\u2019t as pronounced and possibly isn\u2019t even problematic.","human_ref_B":"Should a woman be allowed to voice a male character?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1892.0,"score_ratio":4.6}
+{"post_id":"mf2gmx","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: People should stop using the term \"sus\", when describing something\/someone acting apparently gay. This seems to be a new trend. I'm not a native English speaker so I've only seen\/heard it online, but in essence the term is used like \"bro that was sus as fuck\" \"haha that sounded sus\" \"he was acting sus all night\" etc etc. Basically, if someone (generally a guy) does or says something that makes them \"seem gay\" in any way, you call them sus, short for suspect\/suspicious.  I think this is not only homophobic but also bad in other ways. First off, it implies that being gay is something bad\/shameful\/undesirable. The term has generally negative connotations - \"suspect\" means someone is shady, maybe even dangerous. Being suspicious of someone means you don't know if you can trust them, whether they're hiding something or not. In other situations you would be suspicious of an employee that you think is stealing from your business, or of your partner that you think might be cheating. Accusing someone of being \"sus\" in the viral game Among Us means you think that person is the \"bad guy\"\/murderer. So by saying that someone is \"sus\" for \"acting gay\", it implies being gay is something negative.  Then there is also the part of it that's reinforcing toxic stereotypes. For example if two of your male friends hug each other and you say \"yo that was a bit sus\" as a joke then it reinforces the idea that men should not show emotions or affection. Which is a pretty harmful idea that can lead to men not talking about their problems\/emotions and can ultimately be a factor in men's mental problems and suicide rates.  But I think the main problem I have with the phrase is the homophobic part, and it's very similar to the phrase \"no homo\" which I also think is inherently homophobic. CMV","c_root_id_A":"gsn8y0a","c_root_id_B":"gsnaf3y","created_at_utc_A":1616984577,"created_at_utc_B":1616985465,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I feel like it\u2019s less homophobic and more like don\u2019t make gay sexual comments. I don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything wrong with not wanting a friend to be making sexual comments about you, wether they were gay or straight. It\u2019s more of just saying stop making me uncomfortable and saying weird stuff.","human_ref_B":"I thought sus was from suspicious","labels":0,"seconds_difference":888.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh90ukr","c_root_id_B":"hh91xs1","created_at_utc_A":1634661359,"created_at_utc_B":1634661796,"score_A":7,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":">Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  So are we including food, electricity, heat, cellphone, car payments, car insurance, renters insurance and gas into this equation?","human_ref_B":"Wouldn\u2019t housing keep going up in this scenario?   If everyone suddenly had $2K per month to spend on housing, wouldn\u2019t the shitholes suddenly be priced at $2 grand?  Landlords typically charge what the market will bear.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":437.0,"score_ratio":4.8571428571}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh91xs1","c_root_id_B":"hh90xof","created_at_utc_A":1634661796,"created_at_utc_B":1634661393,"score_A":34,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Wouldn\u2019t housing keep going up in this scenario?   If everyone suddenly had $2K per month to spend on housing, wouldn\u2019t the shitholes suddenly be priced at $2 grand?  Landlords typically charge what the market will bear.","human_ref_B":"Doesn't really seem fair that somebody who does the exact same job but just in a different part of the city should be paid significantly more, just because they do that job in a more affluent part of town","labels":1,"seconds_difference":403.0,"score_ratio":8.5}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh90rwb","c_root_id_B":"hh91xs1","created_at_utc_A":1634661330,"created_at_utc_B":1634661796,"score_A":4,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"Ok what quality houses? Are you talking ownership or renting?","human_ref_B":"Wouldn\u2019t housing keep going up in this scenario?   If everyone suddenly had $2K per month to spend on housing, wouldn\u2019t the shitholes suddenly be priced at $2 grand?  Landlords typically charge what the market will bear.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":466.0,"score_ratio":8.5}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh91xs1","c_root_id_B":"hh91eg6","created_at_utc_A":1634661796,"created_at_utc_B":1634661581,"score_A":34,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Wouldn\u2019t housing keep going up in this scenario?   If everyone suddenly had $2K per month to spend on housing, wouldn\u2019t the shitholes suddenly be priced at $2 grand?  Landlords typically charge what the market will bear.","human_ref_B":"Why only the cost of housing?  Why not also include all the things one must pay to have a basic level of living?  Such as water, electricity\\gas, sanitation, food, and even modern necessities such as phone and internet services?  >Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence.   50hrs is extreme IMO.  What are you factoring into this 50hr work week here?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":215.0,"score_ratio":17.0}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh9jrj1","c_root_id_B":"hh90ukr","created_at_utc_A":1634668875,"created_at_utc_B":1634661359,"score_A":18,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Doesn't this cause a perverse incentive for existing homeowners to further be NIMBY's and block housing development.  \"Not only will my house be worth more, but I'll get paid more too!\"","human_ref_B":">Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  So are we including food, electricity, heat, cellphone, car payments, car insurance, renters insurance and gas into this equation?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7516.0,"score_ratio":2.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh950sc","c_root_id_B":"hh9jrj1","created_at_utc_A":1634663042,"created_at_utc_B":1634668875,"score_A":5,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I like the idea in principle. But I made a recent post about raising minimum wage and people posted some valid concerns.  1. Wouldn't this harm small\/growing businesses? 2. Would this not incentivise large enterprises to automate out roles - which may now be a more cost effective option? 3. Would it not lead to massive (demand push) inflation, ultimately pushing up the price of housing? - you may also need to introduce rent or pricing caps which is another area for complexity. 4. Would it not create flatter organisation structures? Where businesses make up the money by removing bonuses, or pulling back on promotion schemes. Where hard working people no longer get pay rises. 5. Would this not additionally lead to supply side inflation, as businesses push up product prices to absorb the cost of increased minimum wages. Ultimately increasing the cost of living for those same workers?  These were some of the counters I experienced which may be possible to overcome. But makes the situation more complicated.  Another model proposed in the UK that may interest you. Is to tie the wages of the lowest paid in an organisation to that of the executives. So executives could not pay themselves more that 20x that of lowest paid staff. I think I read it was currently up to 70x what a CEO might earn Vs say a cleaner.  This at least removed the burden on SME businesses.","human_ref_B":"Doesn't this cause a perverse incentive for existing homeowners to further be NIMBY's and block housing development.  \"Not only will my house be worth more, but I'll get paid more too!\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5833.0,"score_ratio":3.6}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh9jrj1","c_root_id_B":"hh90xof","created_at_utc_A":1634668875,"created_at_utc_B":1634661393,"score_A":18,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Doesn't this cause a perverse incentive for existing homeowners to further be NIMBY's and block housing development.  \"Not only will my house be worth more, but I'll get paid more too!\"","human_ref_B":"Doesn't really seem fair that somebody who does the exact same job but just in a different part of the city should be paid significantly more, just because they do that job in a more affluent part of town","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7482.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh9jrj1","c_root_id_B":"hh90rwb","created_at_utc_A":1634668875,"created_at_utc_B":1634661330,"score_A":18,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Doesn't this cause a perverse incentive for existing homeowners to further be NIMBY's and block housing development.  \"Not only will my house be worth more, but I'll get paid more too!\"","human_ref_B":"Ok what quality houses? Are you talking ownership or renting?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7545.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh9jrj1","c_root_id_B":"hh94u17","created_at_utc_A":1634668875,"created_at_utc_B":1634662966,"score_A":18,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Doesn't this cause a perverse incentive for existing homeowners to further be NIMBY's and block housing development.  \"Not only will my house be worth more, but I'll get paid more too!\"","human_ref_B":"Why does it makes sense to tie two unrelated things together? Wages are tied to productivity, housing prices are determined by supply and demand. If a city outlaws building housing and the prices go up then low wage jobs will be harder to get. Then poor people will have trouble getting housing and jobs. Would make homelessness increase dramatically.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5909.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh91eg6","c_root_id_B":"hh9jrj1","created_at_utc_A":1634661581,"created_at_utc_B":1634668875,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Why only the cost of housing?  Why not also include all the things one must pay to have a basic level of living?  Such as water, electricity\\gas, sanitation, food, and even modern necessities such as phone and internet services?  >Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence.   50hrs is extreme IMO.  What are you factoring into this 50hr work week here?","human_ref_B":"Doesn't this cause a perverse incentive for existing homeowners to further be NIMBY's and block housing development.  \"Not only will my house be worth more, but I'll get paid more too!\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7294.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh90rwb","c_root_id_B":"hh90ukr","created_at_utc_A":1634661330,"created_at_utc_B":1634661359,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Ok what quality houses? Are you talking ownership or renting?","human_ref_B":">Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  So are we including food, electricity, heat, cellphone, car payments, car insurance, renters insurance and gas into this equation?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh950sc","c_root_id_B":"hh90xof","created_at_utc_A":1634663042,"created_at_utc_B":1634661393,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I like the idea in principle. But I made a recent post about raising minimum wage and people posted some valid concerns.  1. Wouldn't this harm small\/growing businesses? 2. Would this not incentivise large enterprises to automate out roles - which may now be a more cost effective option? 3. Would it not lead to massive (demand push) inflation, ultimately pushing up the price of housing? - you may also need to introduce rent or pricing caps which is another area for complexity. 4. Would it not create flatter organisation structures? Where businesses make up the money by removing bonuses, or pulling back on promotion schemes. Where hard working people no longer get pay rises. 5. Would this not additionally lead to supply side inflation, as businesses push up product prices to absorb the cost of increased minimum wages. Ultimately increasing the cost of living for those same workers?  These were some of the counters I experienced which may be possible to overcome. But makes the situation more complicated.  Another model proposed in the UK that may interest you. Is to tie the wages of the lowest paid in an organisation to that of the executives. So executives could not pay themselves more that 20x that of lowest paid staff. I think I read it was currently up to 70x what a CEO might earn Vs say a cleaner.  This at least removed the burden on SME businesses.","human_ref_B":"Doesn't really seem fair that somebody who does the exact same job but just in a different part of the city should be paid significantly more, just because they do that job in a more affluent part of town","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1649.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh90rwb","c_root_id_B":"hh950sc","created_at_utc_A":1634661330,"created_at_utc_B":1634663042,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Ok what quality houses? Are you talking ownership or renting?","human_ref_B":"I like the idea in principle. But I made a recent post about raising minimum wage and people posted some valid concerns.  1. Wouldn't this harm small\/growing businesses? 2. Would this not incentivise large enterprises to automate out roles - which may now be a more cost effective option? 3. Would it not lead to massive (demand push) inflation, ultimately pushing up the price of housing? - you may also need to introduce rent or pricing caps which is another area for complexity. 4. Would it not create flatter organisation structures? Where businesses make up the money by removing bonuses, or pulling back on promotion schemes. Where hard working people no longer get pay rises. 5. Would this not additionally lead to supply side inflation, as businesses push up product prices to absorb the cost of increased minimum wages. Ultimately increasing the cost of living for those same workers?  These were some of the counters I experienced which may be possible to overcome. But makes the situation more complicated.  Another model proposed in the UK that may interest you. Is to tie the wages of the lowest paid in an organisation to that of the executives. So executives could not pay themselves more that 20x that of lowest paid staff. I think I read it was currently up to 70x what a CEO might earn Vs say a cleaner.  This at least removed the burden on SME businesses.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1712.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh94u17","c_root_id_B":"hh950sc","created_at_utc_A":1634662966,"created_at_utc_B":1634663042,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Why does it makes sense to tie two unrelated things together? Wages are tied to productivity, housing prices are determined by supply and demand. If a city outlaws building housing and the prices go up then low wage jobs will be harder to get. Then poor people will have trouble getting housing and jobs. Would make homelessness increase dramatically.","human_ref_B":"I like the idea in principle. But I made a recent post about raising minimum wage and people posted some valid concerns.  1. Wouldn't this harm small\/growing businesses? 2. Would this not incentivise large enterprises to automate out roles - which may now be a more cost effective option? 3. Would it not lead to massive (demand push) inflation, ultimately pushing up the price of housing? - you may also need to introduce rent or pricing caps which is another area for complexity. 4. Would it not create flatter organisation structures? Where businesses make up the money by removing bonuses, or pulling back on promotion schemes. Where hard working people no longer get pay rises. 5. Would this not additionally lead to supply side inflation, as businesses push up product prices to absorb the cost of increased minimum wages. Ultimately increasing the cost of living for those same workers?  These were some of the counters I experienced which may be possible to overcome. But makes the situation more complicated.  Another model proposed in the UK that may interest you. Is to tie the wages of the lowest paid in an organisation to that of the executives. So executives could not pay themselves more that 20x that of lowest paid staff. I think I read it was currently up to 70x what a CEO might earn Vs say a cleaner.  This at least removed the burden on SME businesses.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":76.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh950sc","c_root_id_B":"hh91eg6","created_at_utc_A":1634663042,"created_at_utc_B":1634661581,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I like the idea in principle. But I made a recent post about raising minimum wage and people posted some valid concerns.  1. Wouldn't this harm small\/growing businesses? 2. Would this not incentivise large enterprises to automate out roles - which may now be a more cost effective option? 3. Would it not lead to massive (demand push) inflation, ultimately pushing up the price of housing? - you may also need to introduce rent or pricing caps which is another area for complexity. 4. Would it not create flatter organisation structures? Where businesses make up the money by removing bonuses, or pulling back on promotion schemes. Where hard working people no longer get pay rises. 5. Would this not additionally lead to supply side inflation, as businesses push up product prices to absorb the cost of increased minimum wages. Ultimately increasing the cost of living for those same workers?  These were some of the counters I experienced which may be possible to overcome. But makes the situation more complicated.  Another model proposed in the UK that may interest you. Is to tie the wages of the lowest paid in an organisation to that of the executives. So executives could not pay themselves more that 20x that of lowest paid staff. I think I read it was currently up to 70x what a CEO might earn Vs say a cleaner.  This at least removed the burden on SME businesses.","human_ref_B":"Why only the cost of housing?  Why not also include all the things one must pay to have a basic level of living?  Such as water, electricity\\gas, sanitation, food, and even modern necessities such as phone and internet services?  >Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence.   50hrs is extreme IMO.  What are you factoring into this 50hr work week here?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1461.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh94u17","c_root_id_B":"hh91eg6","created_at_utc_A":1634662966,"created_at_utc_B":1634661581,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Why does it makes sense to tie two unrelated things together? Wages are tied to productivity, housing prices are determined by supply and demand. If a city outlaws building housing and the prices go up then low wage jobs will be harder to get. Then poor people will have trouble getting housing and jobs. Would make homelessness increase dramatically.","human_ref_B":"Why only the cost of housing?  Why not also include all the things one must pay to have a basic level of living?  Such as water, electricity\\gas, sanitation, food, and even modern necessities such as phone and internet services?  >Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence.   50hrs is extreme IMO.  What are you factoring into this 50hr work week here?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1385.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"qbf3g4","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Minimum Wage Should be Tied to Housing Costs I believe we should start with determining a minimum number of work hours that would allow someone to be independent. I define \"independent\" as being able to afford single-occupancy housing on a single income.  Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence. \"Independence\" is when that worker can afford a studio apartment within a 30 minute commute of their employer (where rent for the apartment equals no more than 28% of gross wages).  I think that we should work backwards from the cost of \"independent\" living, to determine the minimum wage based on the location of the job.  I believe using cost of housing is a more realistic and helpful adjustment factor than inflation. Inflation faces criticism from what it does and does not factor in. I think using actual housing costs tied to specific geographic areas would be most beneficial for the workers, because it reflects their housing reality. If a city's average rent goes up by $50 a year, the minimum wages should reflect that.  Currently, low-wage workers in sectors such as retail have to commute in to higher-cost cities. If minimum wage was tied to the housing costs in the vicinity of the employment, more workers could afford to live near where they work.  I am open to refining this idea, and welcome suggestions. I am sure I am overlooking some economic issues. The 50 hours per week was arbitrary. Personally, I feel like that number could be 32 - 40 hours per week. The commute length of 30 minutes is also arbitrary.","c_root_id_A":"hh9t5ai","c_root_id_B":"hh91eg6","created_at_utc_A":1634672546,"created_at_utc_B":1634661581,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What do you define as a single-occupancy dwelling? A one bedroom apartment with a kitchen and bathroom is a single-occupancy dwelling. A 150 sq. ft. dormitory with a shared kitchen and bathroom is also a single-occupancy dwelling.  What does somebody who earns the absolute minimum market value deserve? It borders on absurdism the idea that someone earning no-skill labor rates can comfortably rent an apartment with a bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom while also being able to pay for healthcare, food, utilities, transportation, etc. Their labor literally does not create the value to cover those costs.  A person who earns minimum wage should be living with roommates or family.","human_ref_B":"Why only the cost of housing?  Why not also include all the things one must pay to have a basic level of living?  Such as water, electricity\\gas, sanitation, food, and even modern necessities such as phone and internet services?  >Let's say my hypothetical society has agreed that working 50 hours per week should allow for independence.   50hrs is extreme IMO.  What are you factoring into this 50hr work week here?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10965.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"3ju7qq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Ethics\/Philosophy should be considered as important of an elective as Fine Arts or Physical Education etc. in high school Schools around the world obviously have varying systems, but by the time students reach high school, they usually have some degree of freedom over what classes they may take. The context of this CMV is in high schools because they often need to make decisions on what kind of elective courses to offer, if any at all.   Classes that are considered electives will often be optional to take at most schools, or if are required, have less hours of classtime when compared to more 'core' classes such as math, or English\/native language. As a result, people will usually select electives that best fit their interests and whatever they need for graduation, or whatever they consider to be an easy course. There are other reasons, but I think those three are the major ones.  When I say ethics\/philosophy, I do not mean in the sense of pushing religious dogma or nihilism or any one specific set of beliefs, but a more broad survey-type course. I think that it's valuable to be able to examine one set of ideologies or philosophies in detail, but have trouble thinking of a practical means to keep them objective right now.  With this is mind, this is why I believe that Ethics\/Philosophy type courses should be as consistently available in high schools as in other electives: They offer a way of understanding the world in a time where the mind is still developing and beginning to struggle with existential questions, and also allow for students to make better decisions in their lives.   When comparing these types of courses to others, such as music, art, or physical education, it is clear that many of these don't have much immediate practical value. I would actually say that the ability to gain a more broad worldview and at least a basic formation of some sort of internal moral code could be more valuable in the present day than being able to run quickly, although there are benefits to both. In many instances, having such an exposure would be of large benefit to people.  In terms of practicality, I think that designing a course tailored for high school students is challenging, but not impossibly difficult. Books tailored for teenagers have been written in this genre (Sophie's World comes to mind), and connections can be drawn from text\/concepts to the real world. Finding teachers to teach such a subject competently probably wouldn't be hard, either. Many teachers in the general 'humanities' field have some background in this, and I would guess that a decent number of them would be interested and willing to share this interest with others. Compared to other electives, which may require money for instruments, or art supplies or similar things, it's not really that expensive, either.  One danger is that this kind of course can be taught poorly, and that some of the effectiveness of it may be lost on students. However, we take this risk with subjects such as math all the time, with students oftentimes turned away because of a teacher that is unable to clearly explain subjects. Even if the precedents in this are ignored, I think that simple exposure, even if incomplete, will still bring more benefits than harm.     _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cuslgqu","c_root_id_B":"cusej11","created_at_utc_A":1441558963,"created_at_utc_B":1441541968,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I had a great philosophy education in high school, *through other classes*.  Algebra laid down a few foundational concepts in logic, and geometry cemented a lot of those concepts with formal proofs and analogies to how \"real world\" logic works. Then in the post- geometry math courses, we used algebraic proofs to establish how different relationships arise between numbers and formulas. The point of this coursework was to establish the foundations for higher level math, but for those of us who didn't go much further in math, it laid down a lot of foundational skills in logic and reasoning (and by extension, common fallacies and mistakes in reasoning).  Contemporaneously with that math education, our science education started relying more on math (and the attendant logical problem solving skills). How do we tie together the known formulas and definitions to figure out the unknowns starts teaching the use of logic as a \"toolbox\" for solving problems. I also took a programming class in high school, which relied heavily on an assumption that we had strong logic skills.  Then, the rhetoric and persuasion type courses start building up practice in practical use of logic in non-technical disciplines. Literature coursework starts exploring a lot of philosophical concepts, especially ethics, truth, fairness, etc. Reading works from different religious traditions really started to demonstrate the importance of certain philosophical underpinnings in different cultures. We get to thinking about these things before even taking a formal philosophy course.   By the time I took a formal philosophy course, I realized that it was just a condensed, focused version of things I had already learned in high school. I ended up majoring in philosophy, but I think that my high school education was already pretty strong in philosophy, at least as much as one could expect for students of high school age and experience. In fact, one of the most notoriously difficult sophomore courses in my major, symbolic logic, was made easier from my high school math experience.  So adding a dedicated philosophy course at the high school level wouldn't add much, in my opinion. We should bolster the \"core\" classes to highlight philosophical concepts, sure, but the best high school curricula already expose students to a solid philosophical education.","human_ref_B":">With this is mind, this is why I believe that Ethics\/Philosophy type courses should be as consistently available in high schools as in other electives: They offer a way of understanding the world in a time where the mind is still developing and beginning to struggle with existential questions, and also allow for students to make better decisions in their lives.   You dismiss \"English\/native language classes\" too easily.  English isn't just grammar and writing.  There's lots of literature in English, which is used to teach students different skills on different levels.  In addition to improving comprehension, vocabulary, speed etc., reading and analyzing a book or story helps develop critical thinking skills, as well as tease out the underlying concepts\/message that the work is attempting to send, as well as historical understanding of that point in time (For example, Huck Finn regarding race, law and ethics\/morality in 19th Century America).  It's important to remember that analytical\/critical thinking skills are developed over time.  By 8th grade we're conditioned to believe that the text is the undisputed truth and learn the material accordingly, in high school that trend mostly continues but now we're introduced to the idea of perspective.  Two articles about the same topic are presented next to each other, and we see more \"unreliable narrators\" in literature.  This is an important and crucial step that needs to be taken before students can jump into philosophy, considering the ambiguity and flaws that \/u\/likeascientist outlined.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16995.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"3ju7qq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Ethics\/Philosophy should be considered as important of an elective as Fine Arts or Physical Education etc. in high school Schools around the world obviously have varying systems, but by the time students reach high school, they usually have some degree of freedom over what classes they may take. The context of this CMV is in high schools because they often need to make decisions on what kind of elective courses to offer, if any at all.   Classes that are considered electives will often be optional to take at most schools, or if are required, have less hours of classtime when compared to more 'core' classes such as math, or English\/native language. As a result, people will usually select electives that best fit their interests and whatever they need for graduation, or whatever they consider to be an easy course. There are other reasons, but I think those three are the major ones.  When I say ethics\/philosophy, I do not mean in the sense of pushing religious dogma or nihilism or any one specific set of beliefs, but a more broad survey-type course. I think that it's valuable to be able to examine one set of ideologies or philosophies in detail, but have trouble thinking of a practical means to keep them objective right now.  With this is mind, this is why I believe that Ethics\/Philosophy type courses should be as consistently available in high schools as in other electives: They offer a way of understanding the world in a time where the mind is still developing and beginning to struggle with existential questions, and also allow for students to make better decisions in their lives.   When comparing these types of courses to others, such as music, art, or physical education, it is clear that many of these don't have much immediate practical value. I would actually say that the ability to gain a more broad worldview and at least a basic formation of some sort of internal moral code could be more valuable in the present day than being able to run quickly, although there are benefits to both. In many instances, having such an exposure would be of large benefit to people.  In terms of practicality, I think that designing a course tailored for high school students is challenging, but not impossibly difficult. Books tailored for teenagers have been written in this genre (Sophie's World comes to mind), and connections can be drawn from text\/concepts to the real world. Finding teachers to teach such a subject competently probably wouldn't be hard, either. Many teachers in the general 'humanities' field have some background in this, and I would guess that a decent number of them would be interested and willing to share this interest with others. Compared to other electives, which may require money for instruments, or art supplies or similar things, it's not really that expensive, either.  One danger is that this kind of course can be taught poorly, and that some of the effectiveness of it may be lost on students. However, we take this risk with subjects such as math all the time, with students oftentimes turned away because of a teacher that is unable to clearly explain subjects. Even if the precedents in this are ignored, I think that simple exposure, even if incomplete, will still bring more benefits than harm.     _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cuslgqu","c_root_id_B":"cuscfdv","created_at_utc_A":1441558963,"created_at_utc_B":1441532120,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I had a great philosophy education in high school, *through other classes*.  Algebra laid down a few foundational concepts in logic, and geometry cemented a lot of those concepts with formal proofs and analogies to how \"real world\" logic works. Then in the post- geometry math courses, we used algebraic proofs to establish how different relationships arise between numbers and formulas. The point of this coursework was to establish the foundations for higher level math, but for those of us who didn't go much further in math, it laid down a lot of foundational skills in logic and reasoning (and by extension, common fallacies and mistakes in reasoning).  Contemporaneously with that math education, our science education started relying more on math (and the attendant logical problem solving skills). How do we tie together the known formulas and definitions to figure out the unknowns starts teaching the use of logic as a \"toolbox\" for solving problems. I also took a programming class in high school, which relied heavily on an assumption that we had strong logic skills.  Then, the rhetoric and persuasion type courses start building up practice in practical use of logic in non-technical disciplines. Literature coursework starts exploring a lot of philosophical concepts, especially ethics, truth, fairness, etc. Reading works from different religious traditions really started to demonstrate the importance of certain philosophical underpinnings in different cultures. We get to thinking about these things before even taking a formal philosophy course.   By the time I took a formal philosophy course, I realized that it was just a condensed, focused version of things I had already learned in high school. I ended up majoring in philosophy, but I think that my high school education was already pretty strong in philosophy, at least as much as one could expect for students of high school age and experience. In fact, one of the most notoriously difficult sophomore courses in my major, symbolic logic, was made easier from my high school math experience.  So adding a dedicated philosophy course at the high school level wouldn't add much, in my opinion. We should bolster the \"core\" classes to highlight philosophical concepts, sure, but the best high school curricula already expose students to a solid philosophical education.","human_ref_B":"I think it's horribly dangerous.   Look at what happens to older kids going into philosophy at the Uni\/College level - they start out starry eyed on a quest for *the truth* - and years later are spat out not believing much of anything anymore. The light goes out their eyes, their youthful arrogance and naivety not replaced with wisdom and confidence but with sophistries and self-doubt.  And you want to bring this forward 5-10 years?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26843.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"tksj8r","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Too many people in America are more than willing to throw out the presumption of innocence for specific crimes. This is spurred by the Deshaun Watson case, and subsequent signing by the Cleveland Browns.   Before I start, I want to be clear, I'm making ABSOLUTELY no judgments on his guilt or innocence or the integrity of his accusers.    However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial.  That is a BIG DEAL.  Like grand juries really don't need much to move something forward.   He never even had official charges brought against him.   The public has seen no evidence, just knows there are accusations.  The grand jury saw the evidence the prosecution had, and decided there wasn't really enough there.  But so many people are acting like no team should have signed him after this happened.    If we are a country (if you live in the USA anyway) who believes in the presumption of innocence for the accused, then we shouldn't want others punished, even by their employer, based on just accusations.   Especially ones where there is a legal investigation and there isn't found to be enough evidence.    Hell, in many states, asking if you have been arrested isn't even allowed on applications.  They can ask if you have been convicted of a felony, but many places have decided that an arrest enough shouldn't bar people from employment without a conviction.  I'm just a random dude, but I've been arrested twice, and both times the cases were thrown out.  I'd hate for my company at the time, or even a future employer to look at that and use the \"well, SOMETHING bad must have happened for him to get arrested, so we shouldn't hire him\".  And I think that same grace to be applied to everyone.  Granted neither time was for sexual assault or anything.  But should the crime matter if there isn't evidence?  The problem seems to be WHAT he is accused of.  But I don't really think we should have different standards of \"innocent until proven guilty\" based on the crime.  And look, I get he is a public person, and they are held to different standards.  But should they be?  Its still a job, and people want him punished based solely on accusations.  But, by all accounts, we should be treating him as innocent.    And to reiterate.  I'm not saying his accusers are lying.  But should he, even in the court of public opinion, be treated as a criminal?  Absolutely not.","c_root_id_A":"i1t3kbz","c_root_id_B":"i1sc3sw","created_at_utc_A":1648050394,"created_at_utc_B":1648038709,"score_A":169,"score_B":102,"human_ref_A":"> However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial. That is a BIG DEAL....  It may be a minor point but you shouldn't put too much weight on the findings of a grand jury. There is a famous quote that a grand jury would \"indict a ham sandwich,\" and the same retired judge (if also convicted criminal) went on to state that they \"operate more often as the prosecutor\u2019s pawn than the citizen\u2019s shield.\"  The point of that quote is that a good prosecutor completely controls the grand jury, with them issuing indictments if and only if the prosecutor wants them. At the risk of getting into politics, grand juries were developed as a way to protect rich, white men from the criminal justice system, and US history is full of examples of them being used as cover for prosecutors (i.e. to justify decisions to prosecute usually non-white men when there was minimal evidence, and justifying decisions not to prosecute - often police officers or other people in positions of power - despite overwhelming evidence). In the US the prosecutor gets to decide what the grand jury sees and hears and as the jurors are bound to secrecy there are virtually no checks in place to ensure the prosecutor makes the best case possible (or doesn't exaggerate the case).  If you want a good example, the grand jury investigating the killing of Breonna Taylor failed to return an indictment of homicide against the people who killed her. The Kentucky Attorney General stated that the grand jury had \"agreed\" that shooting her had been justified. However some of the jurors risked breaking the law to comment on this, which led to the transcripts being unsealed (over the AG's objections) and it turned out the AG had refused to let the jury consider homicide charges (despite them asking about it), and muddled up self-defence laws.  The US is one of two countries that still use grand juries - the other being Liberia (whose constitution is modelled on the US's). That the US uses them is a quirk of historical timing more than anything else, but for over two hundred years they have been used to protect the powerful and persecute those without power.","human_ref_B":"There are three things I think we ought to mention about this.   First, sexual assault cases are notorious for being difficult. The fact that a grand jury did not decide to move for criminal charges or that people at large are not necessarily convinced by that isn't particularly surprising in itself. It's not difficult to understand, I think. We also want to keep in mind that people can do *bad things* that aren't necessarily *criminal things* and we can judge them on that.   Second, the man did benefit from presumption of innocence, that's why he's not facing criminal charges. Besides, there are still 22 civil lawsuits pending, I believe.   Third, there are obviously limits to presumption of innocence. It's a legal standard upheld by the court for very good reasons, but you can't expect public opinion at large to abide by it as strictly. It's well understood that the legal system is meant to clear a very high bar, because the consequences are so dire. Most people out there understand that, because of how the legal system is structured, you can do bad things, even criminal things, without ever being convicted in a court of law. While these standards are very good in the narrow context of a courtroom, I don't think they're necessarily practicable in the world at large.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11685.0,"score_ratio":1.6568627451}
+{"post_id":"tksj8r","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Too many people in America are more than willing to throw out the presumption of innocence for specific crimes. This is spurred by the Deshaun Watson case, and subsequent signing by the Cleveland Browns.   Before I start, I want to be clear, I'm making ABSOLUTELY no judgments on his guilt or innocence or the integrity of his accusers.    However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial.  That is a BIG DEAL.  Like grand juries really don't need much to move something forward.   He never even had official charges brought against him.   The public has seen no evidence, just knows there are accusations.  The grand jury saw the evidence the prosecution had, and decided there wasn't really enough there.  But so many people are acting like no team should have signed him after this happened.    If we are a country (if you live in the USA anyway) who believes in the presumption of innocence for the accused, then we shouldn't want others punished, even by their employer, based on just accusations.   Especially ones where there is a legal investigation and there isn't found to be enough evidence.    Hell, in many states, asking if you have been arrested isn't even allowed on applications.  They can ask if you have been convicted of a felony, but many places have decided that an arrest enough shouldn't bar people from employment without a conviction.  I'm just a random dude, but I've been arrested twice, and both times the cases were thrown out.  I'd hate for my company at the time, or even a future employer to look at that and use the \"well, SOMETHING bad must have happened for him to get arrested, so we shouldn't hire him\".  And I think that same grace to be applied to everyone.  Granted neither time was for sexual assault or anything.  But should the crime matter if there isn't evidence?  The problem seems to be WHAT he is accused of.  But I don't really think we should have different standards of \"innocent until proven guilty\" based on the crime.  And look, I get he is a public person, and they are held to different standards.  But should they be?  Its still a job, and people want him punished based solely on accusations.  But, by all accounts, we should be treating him as innocent.    And to reiterate.  I'm not saying his accusers are lying.  But should he, even in the court of public opinion, be treated as a criminal?  Absolutely not.","c_root_id_A":"i1sbdln","c_root_id_B":"i1t3kbz","created_at_utc_A":1648038317,"created_at_utc_B":1648050394,"score_A":34,"score_B":169,"human_ref_A":"Different burdens of proof are used in different contexts in the US.  Preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases.  All that is required to deprive a person of property is more evidence than not that someone is guilty.  Many employers use a \"clear and convincing\" standard for deciding whether or not to take action against an employee.  imprisonment requires \"proof beyond a reasonable doubt\".  (people can also be imprisoned before trial without meeting this requirement, especially if they don't have money for bail, but the right to a \"speedy trial\" is at least supposed to prevent this from taking too long).  Do you feel that using either of the other two standards in other contexts is inappropriate?  Do you think we should expect \"proof beyond a reasonable doubt\" in civil court and employment, too?","human_ref_B":"> However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial. That is a BIG DEAL....  It may be a minor point but you shouldn't put too much weight on the findings of a grand jury. There is a famous quote that a grand jury would \"indict a ham sandwich,\" and the same retired judge (if also convicted criminal) went on to state that they \"operate more often as the prosecutor\u2019s pawn than the citizen\u2019s shield.\"  The point of that quote is that a good prosecutor completely controls the grand jury, with them issuing indictments if and only if the prosecutor wants them. At the risk of getting into politics, grand juries were developed as a way to protect rich, white men from the criminal justice system, and US history is full of examples of them being used as cover for prosecutors (i.e. to justify decisions to prosecute usually non-white men when there was minimal evidence, and justifying decisions not to prosecute - often police officers or other people in positions of power - despite overwhelming evidence). In the US the prosecutor gets to decide what the grand jury sees and hears and as the jurors are bound to secrecy there are virtually no checks in place to ensure the prosecutor makes the best case possible (or doesn't exaggerate the case).  If you want a good example, the grand jury investigating the killing of Breonna Taylor failed to return an indictment of homicide against the people who killed her. The Kentucky Attorney General stated that the grand jury had \"agreed\" that shooting her had been justified. However some of the jurors risked breaking the law to comment on this, which led to the transcripts being unsealed (over the AG's objections) and it turned out the AG had refused to let the jury consider homicide charges (despite them asking about it), and muddled up self-defence laws.  The US is one of two countries that still use grand juries - the other being Liberia (whose constitution is modelled on the US's). That the US uses them is a quirk of historical timing more than anything else, but for over two hundred years they have been used to protect the powerful and persecute those without power.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12077.0,"score_ratio":4.9705882353}
+{"post_id":"tksj8r","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Too many people in America are more than willing to throw out the presumption of innocence for specific crimes. This is spurred by the Deshaun Watson case, and subsequent signing by the Cleveland Browns.   Before I start, I want to be clear, I'm making ABSOLUTELY no judgments on his guilt or innocence or the integrity of his accusers.    However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial.  That is a BIG DEAL.  Like grand juries really don't need much to move something forward.   He never even had official charges brought against him.   The public has seen no evidence, just knows there are accusations.  The grand jury saw the evidence the prosecution had, and decided there wasn't really enough there.  But so many people are acting like no team should have signed him after this happened.    If we are a country (if you live in the USA anyway) who believes in the presumption of innocence for the accused, then we shouldn't want others punished, even by their employer, based on just accusations.   Especially ones where there is a legal investigation and there isn't found to be enough evidence.    Hell, in many states, asking if you have been arrested isn't even allowed on applications.  They can ask if you have been convicted of a felony, but many places have decided that an arrest enough shouldn't bar people from employment without a conviction.  I'm just a random dude, but I've been arrested twice, and both times the cases were thrown out.  I'd hate for my company at the time, or even a future employer to look at that and use the \"well, SOMETHING bad must have happened for him to get arrested, so we shouldn't hire him\".  And I think that same grace to be applied to everyone.  Granted neither time was for sexual assault or anything.  But should the crime matter if there isn't evidence?  The problem seems to be WHAT he is accused of.  But I don't really think we should have different standards of \"innocent until proven guilty\" based on the crime.  And look, I get he is a public person, and they are held to different standards.  But should they be?  Its still a job, and people want him punished based solely on accusations.  But, by all accounts, we should be treating him as innocent.    And to reiterate.  I'm not saying his accusers are lying.  But should he, even in the court of public opinion, be treated as a criminal?  Absolutely not.","c_root_id_A":"i1t3kbz","c_root_id_B":"i1sc7w8","created_at_utc_A":1648050394,"created_at_utc_B":1648038769,"score_A":169,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"> However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial. That is a BIG DEAL....  It may be a minor point but you shouldn't put too much weight on the findings of a grand jury. There is a famous quote that a grand jury would \"indict a ham sandwich,\" and the same retired judge (if also convicted criminal) went on to state that they \"operate more often as the prosecutor\u2019s pawn than the citizen\u2019s shield.\"  The point of that quote is that a good prosecutor completely controls the grand jury, with them issuing indictments if and only if the prosecutor wants them. At the risk of getting into politics, grand juries were developed as a way to protect rich, white men from the criminal justice system, and US history is full of examples of them being used as cover for prosecutors (i.e. to justify decisions to prosecute usually non-white men when there was minimal evidence, and justifying decisions not to prosecute - often police officers or other people in positions of power - despite overwhelming evidence). In the US the prosecutor gets to decide what the grand jury sees and hears and as the jurors are bound to secrecy there are virtually no checks in place to ensure the prosecutor makes the best case possible (or doesn't exaggerate the case).  If you want a good example, the grand jury investigating the killing of Breonna Taylor failed to return an indictment of homicide against the people who killed her. The Kentucky Attorney General stated that the grand jury had \"agreed\" that shooting her had been justified. However some of the jurors risked breaking the law to comment on this, which led to the transcripts being unsealed (over the AG's objections) and it turned out the AG had refused to let the jury consider homicide charges (despite them asking about it), and muddled up self-defence laws.  The US is one of two countries that still use grand juries - the other being Liberia (whose constitution is modelled on the US's). That the US uses them is a quirk of historical timing more than anything else, but for over two hundred years they have been used to protect the powerful and persecute those without power.","human_ref_B":"The grandjury heard from 8 of the 22 women and 2 others.  But\u2026 it isn\u2019t really the be all end all. We all know plenty of people get away with crimes especially ones that lie on a very grey line and often have little evidence - such as sexual coercion.   But what is wrong with people looking at the evidence public themselves and making their own decisions - that 22 women have come forward and he has admitted to having sex with atleast some of them just that it wasn\u2019t coercive.   You presume innocence, obviously, everyone did no one who has decided he is guilty in their minds did so with 0 evidence just by hearing his name once. You can decide or not wherever the evidence is compelling yourself.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11625.0,"score_ratio":7.6818181818}
+{"post_id":"tksj8r","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Too many people in America are more than willing to throw out the presumption of innocence for specific crimes. This is spurred by the Deshaun Watson case, and subsequent signing by the Cleveland Browns.   Before I start, I want to be clear, I'm making ABSOLUTELY no judgments on his guilt or innocence or the integrity of his accusers.    However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial.  That is a BIG DEAL.  Like grand juries really don't need much to move something forward.   He never even had official charges brought against him.   The public has seen no evidence, just knows there are accusations.  The grand jury saw the evidence the prosecution had, and decided there wasn't really enough there.  But so many people are acting like no team should have signed him after this happened.    If we are a country (if you live in the USA anyway) who believes in the presumption of innocence for the accused, then we shouldn't want others punished, even by their employer, based on just accusations.   Especially ones where there is a legal investigation and there isn't found to be enough evidence.    Hell, in many states, asking if you have been arrested isn't even allowed on applications.  They can ask if you have been convicted of a felony, but many places have decided that an arrest enough shouldn't bar people from employment without a conviction.  I'm just a random dude, but I've been arrested twice, and both times the cases were thrown out.  I'd hate for my company at the time, or even a future employer to look at that and use the \"well, SOMETHING bad must have happened for him to get arrested, so we shouldn't hire him\".  And I think that same grace to be applied to everyone.  Granted neither time was for sexual assault or anything.  But should the crime matter if there isn't evidence?  The problem seems to be WHAT he is accused of.  But I don't really think we should have different standards of \"innocent until proven guilty\" based on the crime.  And look, I get he is a public person, and they are held to different standards.  But should they be?  Its still a job, and people want him punished based solely on accusations.  But, by all accounts, we should be treating him as innocent.    And to reiterate.  I'm not saying his accusers are lying.  But should he, even in the court of public opinion, be treated as a criminal?  Absolutely not.","c_root_id_A":"i1t3kbz","c_root_id_B":"i1sctqi","created_at_utc_A":1648050394,"created_at_utc_B":1648039092,"score_A":169,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"> However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial. That is a BIG DEAL....  It may be a minor point but you shouldn't put too much weight on the findings of a grand jury. There is a famous quote that a grand jury would \"indict a ham sandwich,\" and the same retired judge (if also convicted criminal) went on to state that they \"operate more often as the prosecutor\u2019s pawn than the citizen\u2019s shield.\"  The point of that quote is that a good prosecutor completely controls the grand jury, with them issuing indictments if and only if the prosecutor wants them. At the risk of getting into politics, grand juries were developed as a way to protect rich, white men from the criminal justice system, and US history is full of examples of them being used as cover for prosecutors (i.e. to justify decisions to prosecute usually non-white men when there was minimal evidence, and justifying decisions not to prosecute - often police officers or other people in positions of power - despite overwhelming evidence). In the US the prosecutor gets to decide what the grand jury sees and hears and as the jurors are bound to secrecy there are virtually no checks in place to ensure the prosecutor makes the best case possible (or doesn't exaggerate the case).  If you want a good example, the grand jury investigating the killing of Breonna Taylor failed to return an indictment of homicide against the people who killed her. The Kentucky Attorney General stated that the grand jury had \"agreed\" that shooting her had been justified. However some of the jurors risked breaking the law to comment on this, which led to the transcripts being unsealed (over the AG's objections) and it turned out the AG had refused to let the jury consider homicide charges (despite them asking about it), and muddled up self-defence laws.  The US is one of two countries that still use grand juries - the other being Liberia (whose constitution is modelled on the US's). That the US uses them is a quirk of historical timing more than anything else, but for over two hundred years they have been used to protect the powerful and persecute those without power.","human_ref_B":"I think it's important to acknowledge that over 20 women have separately accused him of sexual assault. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me over twenty times......  What's frustrating about this case is how readily people accept the conspiracy theory that these 20+ women are all in cahoots with each other, that each and every one of them fabricated their story. I hope people realize that the probability of it happening once is low, and thus, the probability of it happening 20+ times is astronomically low. The probability that not one of these women confesses to being a part of the conspiracy is really fucking low too.   Not to mention, who on planet earth needs to put that much money and effort into disgracing the starting QB of the HOUSTON TEXANS, a team that has never in its history even made it past the divisional round of the playoffs? If it's some racist who just hates the idea of a black QB, then he's pretty damn late to the party since NFL QBs have been black since 1968, and 10 of today's starting QBs in the NFL are black. So like, who the hell just suddenly decides out of nowhere that the black QB of a fairly mediocre team needs to go down and concocts the most elaborate and likely extremely expensive conspiracies of all time just to take him down, especially when Deshaun is actually quite good at his job, meaning it couldn't even be a disgruntled Texans football fan? Once you fully unpack all of this, you realize how extremely preposterous it is to think that some conspiracy is afoot.  The issue with the lack of LEGAL justice is inadequate proof for the court of law. Obviously, if a woman says she was assaulted but has no physical evidence of such, that does NOT mean she wasn't assaulted, so I very vehemently disagree with your assertion that the grand jury's conclusion is a \"BIG DEAL\". You're making the common mistake of conflating LEGAL justice with MORAL justice and assuming that what could not be proven in a legal sense carries over into our sense of MORAL justice, and that's wrong.   As OJ Simpson's lawyer Alan Dershowitz once said about his famous case, \"there's legal justice and there's moral justice. I believe legal justice was done in this case, but as for moral justice, I don't discuss that with anyone, not even my wife.\" And just what do you think he meant by that??","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11302.0,"score_ratio":9.3888888889}
+{"post_id":"tksj8r","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Too many people in America are more than willing to throw out the presumption of innocence for specific crimes. This is spurred by the Deshaun Watson case, and subsequent signing by the Cleveland Browns.   Before I start, I want to be clear, I'm making ABSOLUTELY no judgments on his guilt or innocence or the integrity of his accusers.    However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial.  That is a BIG DEAL.  Like grand juries really don't need much to move something forward.   He never even had official charges brought against him.   The public has seen no evidence, just knows there are accusations.  The grand jury saw the evidence the prosecution had, and decided there wasn't really enough there.  But so many people are acting like no team should have signed him after this happened.    If we are a country (if you live in the USA anyway) who believes in the presumption of innocence for the accused, then we shouldn't want others punished, even by their employer, based on just accusations.   Especially ones where there is a legal investigation and there isn't found to be enough evidence.    Hell, in many states, asking if you have been arrested isn't even allowed on applications.  They can ask if you have been convicted of a felony, but many places have decided that an arrest enough shouldn't bar people from employment without a conviction.  I'm just a random dude, but I've been arrested twice, and both times the cases were thrown out.  I'd hate for my company at the time, or even a future employer to look at that and use the \"well, SOMETHING bad must have happened for him to get arrested, so we shouldn't hire him\".  And I think that same grace to be applied to everyone.  Granted neither time was for sexual assault or anything.  But should the crime matter if there isn't evidence?  The problem seems to be WHAT he is accused of.  But I don't really think we should have different standards of \"innocent until proven guilty\" based on the crime.  And look, I get he is a public person, and they are held to different standards.  But should they be?  Its still a job, and people want him punished based solely on accusations.  But, by all accounts, we should be treating him as innocent.    And to reiterate.  I'm not saying his accusers are lying.  But should he, even in the court of public opinion, be treated as a criminal?  Absolutely not.","c_root_id_A":"i1t3kbz","c_root_id_B":"i1scvtu","created_at_utc_A":1648050394,"created_at_utc_B":1648039122,"score_A":169,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial. That is a BIG DEAL....  It may be a minor point but you shouldn't put too much weight on the findings of a grand jury. There is a famous quote that a grand jury would \"indict a ham sandwich,\" and the same retired judge (if also convicted criminal) went on to state that they \"operate more often as the prosecutor\u2019s pawn than the citizen\u2019s shield.\"  The point of that quote is that a good prosecutor completely controls the grand jury, with them issuing indictments if and only if the prosecutor wants them. At the risk of getting into politics, grand juries were developed as a way to protect rich, white men from the criminal justice system, and US history is full of examples of them being used as cover for prosecutors (i.e. to justify decisions to prosecute usually non-white men when there was minimal evidence, and justifying decisions not to prosecute - often police officers or other people in positions of power - despite overwhelming evidence). In the US the prosecutor gets to decide what the grand jury sees and hears and as the jurors are bound to secrecy there are virtually no checks in place to ensure the prosecutor makes the best case possible (or doesn't exaggerate the case).  If you want a good example, the grand jury investigating the killing of Breonna Taylor failed to return an indictment of homicide against the people who killed her. The Kentucky Attorney General stated that the grand jury had \"agreed\" that shooting her had been justified. However some of the jurors risked breaking the law to comment on this, which led to the transcripts being unsealed (over the AG's objections) and it turned out the AG had refused to let the jury consider homicide charges (despite them asking about it), and muddled up self-defence laws.  The US is one of two countries that still use grand juries - the other being Liberia (whose constitution is modelled on the US's). That the US uses them is a quirk of historical timing more than anything else, but for over two hundred years they have been used to protect the powerful and persecute those without power.","human_ref_B":"There are several factors at play here, so I'm going to go shotgun style:  * Grand juries do indict quite often, but as we've also seen in several police abuse cases, it is also not uncommon for prosecutors to tank certain grand jury proceedings they don't want to go forward by allowing opposing evidence. Whether Deshaun Watson got that style of treatment or not is impossible to know. * Sexual charges are very difficult to move forward on. Combined with the above, it may be very hard to proceed with a charge unless the prosecution urges the Grand Jury on, as the physical evidence is quite limited barring a smoking gun video with sound. * A grand jury failing to indict does not mean that there was not sexual misconduct or sexual harassment, just that the evidence they were presented did not support criminal charges. Much of what Watson is accused of doing is on the borderline between criminal and civil, which brings me to my next point... * Civil suits do not have a standard of \"beyond a reasonable doubt\", they have a preponderance of evidence standard. Shooting the shit on the Internet has even lower standards. Concluding that Watson probably did it based on the number of independent accusations and the evidence we have is not some sort of failing. * Further, requiring a criminal trial or proof beyond reasonable doubt is something that we obviously don't do in real life most of the time. If I'm working a shift with you and Dave, and when we go to the break room both of our lunches are gone, we're gonna think \"Dave stole them\", even if we are nowhere near criminal liability. Even our employer, who might fire Dave for theft, probably won't meet the standards for beyond a reasonable doubt just based on security footage! * Even in cases where we *do* have a criminal trial, treating the outcome as sacrosanct feels wrong. We all know that OJ did it, and we literally have Bill Cosby admitting he did it as part of a civil trial, and neither of them are legally guilty of anything. That doesn't mean I'm discarding the presumption of innocence or whatever.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11272.0,"score_ratio":28.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"tksj8r","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Too many people in America are more than willing to throw out the presumption of innocence for specific crimes. This is spurred by the Deshaun Watson case, and subsequent signing by the Cleveland Browns.   Before I start, I want to be clear, I'm making ABSOLUTELY no judgments on his guilt or innocence or the integrity of his accusers.    However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial.  That is a BIG DEAL.  Like grand juries really don't need much to move something forward.   He never even had official charges brought against him.   The public has seen no evidence, just knows there are accusations.  The grand jury saw the evidence the prosecution had, and decided there wasn't really enough there.  But so many people are acting like no team should have signed him after this happened.    If we are a country (if you live in the USA anyway) who believes in the presumption of innocence for the accused, then we shouldn't want others punished, even by their employer, based on just accusations.   Especially ones where there is a legal investigation and there isn't found to be enough evidence.    Hell, in many states, asking if you have been arrested isn't even allowed on applications.  They can ask if you have been convicted of a felony, but many places have decided that an arrest enough shouldn't bar people from employment without a conviction.  I'm just a random dude, but I've been arrested twice, and both times the cases were thrown out.  I'd hate for my company at the time, or even a future employer to look at that and use the \"well, SOMETHING bad must have happened for him to get arrested, so we shouldn't hire him\".  And I think that same grace to be applied to everyone.  Granted neither time was for sexual assault or anything.  But should the crime matter if there isn't evidence?  The problem seems to be WHAT he is accused of.  But I don't really think we should have different standards of \"innocent until proven guilty\" based on the crime.  And look, I get he is a public person, and they are held to different standards.  But should they be?  Its still a job, and people want him punished based solely on accusations.  But, by all accounts, we should be treating him as innocent.    And to reiterate.  I'm not saying his accusers are lying.  But should he, even in the court of public opinion, be treated as a criminal?  Absolutely not.","c_root_id_A":"i1sbdln","c_root_id_B":"i1sc3sw","created_at_utc_A":1648038317,"created_at_utc_B":1648038709,"score_A":34,"score_B":102,"human_ref_A":"Different burdens of proof are used in different contexts in the US.  Preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases.  All that is required to deprive a person of property is more evidence than not that someone is guilty.  Many employers use a \"clear and convincing\" standard for deciding whether or not to take action against an employee.  imprisonment requires \"proof beyond a reasonable doubt\".  (people can also be imprisoned before trial without meeting this requirement, especially if they don't have money for bail, but the right to a \"speedy trial\" is at least supposed to prevent this from taking too long).  Do you feel that using either of the other two standards in other contexts is inappropriate?  Do you think we should expect \"proof beyond a reasonable doubt\" in civil court and employment, too?","human_ref_B":"There are three things I think we ought to mention about this.   First, sexual assault cases are notorious for being difficult. The fact that a grand jury did not decide to move for criminal charges or that people at large are not necessarily convinced by that isn't particularly surprising in itself. It's not difficult to understand, I think. We also want to keep in mind that people can do *bad things* that aren't necessarily *criminal things* and we can judge them on that.   Second, the man did benefit from presumption of innocence, that's why he's not facing criminal charges. Besides, there are still 22 civil lawsuits pending, I believe.   Third, there are obviously limits to presumption of innocence. It's a legal standard upheld by the court for very good reasons, but you can't expect public opinion at large to abide by it as strictly. It's well understood that the legal system is meant to clear a very high bar, because the consequences are so dire. Most people out there understand that, because of how the legal system is structured, you can do bad things, even criminal things, without ever being convicted in a court of law. While these standards are very good in the narrow context of a courtroom, I don't think they're necessarily practicable in the world at large.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":392.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij44cpu","c_root_id_B":"ij437xw","created_at_utc_A":1659738407,"created_at_utc_B":1659737923,"score_A":1467,"score_B":161,"human_ref_A":"On the contrary, the writers of *Stranger Things* had to make walkie-talkies way more reliable than they actually were, in order to make plots that would work for modern audiences accustomed to cell phones. While unreliable phone tech is a plot point repeatedly for Joyce Byers, the kids expect to be able to get in touch remotely without using a house phone as long as they're in the same town.  In the actual 1980s, if you wanted to get together with your buddy, you either had an arranged meeting place, or you stuck together after school, or you visited their house and knocked on the door, or you called the house phone and politely said \"Hi Mrs. Byers, this is Mike Wheeler, may I please talk to Will if he's around?\"  (Heck, in the '90s I remember it being a big deal if someone got off the school bus at a different stop from their usual, because that meant they were going to meet up with someone. Drama could take *days* to resolve, unless everyone was already waiting by their phones.)","human_ref_B":"Cell phones make writing easier. Characters don\u2019t need to plan ahead. Instant communication solves tons of issues.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":484.0,"score_ratio":9.1118012422}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij43we1","c_root_id_B":"ij44cpu","created_at_utc_A":1659738210,"created_at_utc_B":1659738407,"score_A":26,"score_B":1467,"human_ref_A":"I mean... the way you phrase it makes it feel like that's the *only* reason why they're set there - which obviously isn't true. There can be plenty of reasons why they're set in a certain time period - just think of biographical movies.","human_ref_B":"On the contrary, the writers of *Stranger Things* had to make walkie-talkies way more reliable than they actually were, in order to make plots that would work for modern audiences accustomed to cell phones. While unreliable phone tech is a plot point repeatedly for Joyce Byers, the kids expect to be able to get in touch remotely without using a house phone as long as they're in the same town.  In the actual 1980s, if you wanted to get together with your buddy, you either had an arranged meeting place, or you stuck together after school, or you visited their house and knocked on the door, or you called the house phone and politely said \"Hi Mrs. Byers, this is Mike Wheeler, may I please talk to Will if he's around?\"  (Heck, in the '90s I remember it being a big deal if someone got off the school bus at a different stop from their usual, because that meant they were going to meet up with someone. Drama could take *days* to resolve, unless everyone was already waiting by their phones.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":197.0,"score_ratio":56.4230769231}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij43th3","c_root_id_B":"ij44cpu","created_at_utc_A":1659738176,"created_at_utc_B":1659738407,"score_A":8,"score_B":1467,"human_ref_A":"I\"d argue that cell phones make it easier, it gives a Deus ex machina for virtually any situation.  If anything movies are set in the 80s or 90s to cash in on all the sentimental crap pulled up by shows like Stranger Things","human_ref_B":"On the contrary, the writers of *Stranger Things* had to make walkie-talkies way more reliable than they actually were, in order to make plots that would work for modern audiences accustomed to cell phones. While unreliable phone tech is a plot point repeatedly for Joyce Byers, the kids expect to be able to get in touch remotely without using a house phone as long as they're in the same town.  In the actual 1980s, if you wanted to get together with your buddy, you either had an arranged meeting place, or you stuck together after school, or you visited their house and knocked on the door, or you called the house phone and politely said \"Hi Mrs. Byers, this is Mike Wheeler, may I please talk to Will if he's around?\"  (Heck, in the '90s I remember it being a big deal if someone got off the school bus at a different stop from their usual, because that meant they were going to meet up with someone. Drama could take *days* to resolve, unless everyone was already waiting by their phones.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":231.0,"score_ratio":183.375}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij43we1","c_root_id_B":"ij4ddve","created_at_utc_A":1659738210,"created_at_utc_B":1659742470,"score_A":26,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"I mean... the way you phrase it makes it feel like that's the *only* reason why they're set there - which obviously isn't true. There can be plenty of reasons why they're set in a certain time period - just think of biographical movies.","human_ref_B":"B.. But heist plots. Superhero movies. The mildest of Sci Fi. It seems like they're almost always able to communicate at all times with ear pieces.   Also, if you wanna show screens or texts, a simple fix is to just overlay the UI and text bubbles onto the screen. I can't think of an instant example, but they do this in anime a lot. (Maybe because it's stylized and it's not too jarring compared to live action? Either way. You can do the same trick if you're fine with that much editing magic.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4260.0,"score_ratio":1.6153846154}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4c427","c_root_id_B":"ij4ddve","created_at_utc_A":1659741882,"created_at_utc_B":1659742470,"score_A":8,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"Is the primary issue here reading the texts that characters receive?","human_ref_B":"B.. But heist plots. Superhero movies. The mildest of Sci Fi. It seems like they're almost always able to communicate at all times with ear pieces.   Also, if you wanna show screens or texts, a simple fix is to just overlay the UI and text bubbles onto the screen. I can't think of an instant example, but they do this in anime a lot. (Maybe because it's stylized and it's not too jarring compared to live action? Either way. You can do the same trick if you're fine with that much editing magic.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":588.0,"score_ratio":5.25}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4ddve","c_root_id_B":"ij43th3","created_at_utc_A":1659742470,"created_at_utc_B":1659738176,"score_A":42,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"B.. But heist plots. Superhero movies. The mildest of Sci Fi. It seems like they're almost always able to communicate at all times with ear pieces.   Also, if you wanna show screens or texts, a simple fix is to just overlay the UI and text bubbles onto the screen. I can't think of an instant example, but they do this in anime a lot. (Maybe because it's stylized and it's not too jarring compared to live action? Either way. You can do the same trick if you're fine with that much editing magic.)","human_ref_B":"I\"d argue that cell phones make it easier, it gives a Deus ex machina for virtually any situation.  If anything movies are set in the 80s or 90s to cash in on all the sentimental crap pulled up by shows like Stranger Things","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4294.0,"score_ratio":5.25}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4ddve","c_root_id_B":"ij4d8n5","created_at_utc_A":1659742470,"created_at_utc_B":1659742403,"score_A":42,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"B.. But heist plots. Superhero movies. The mildest of Sci Fi. It seems like they're almost always able to communicate at all times with ear pieces.   Also, if you wanna show screens or texts, a simple fix is to just overlay the UI and text bubbles onto the screen. I can't think of an instant example, but they do this in anime a lot. (Maybe because it's stylized and it's not too jarring compared to live action? Either way. You can do the same trick if you're fine with that much editing magic.)","human_ref_B":"I don't think the creators\/writers of these shows are motivated to pick a time period based on how easy it is or isn't to include or exclude cell phones. There are just so many other things that go into what and why something is made.  We're seeing stories from this time largely because of generational timing and market forces. The current wave of new creators getting budgets to make things is full of a lot of millennials, who are more likely to create content from this time period because it includes their formative years and lived experiences. There's also a \"nostalgia\" trend in the market, again driven by millennials, that means stories from these time periods are more likely to be greenlit to target that audience.  Those two things are far more explanatory of why content is made about these times rather than \"because writers find it challenging to include cell phones in stories.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":67.0,"score_ratio":14.0}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4avnd","c_root_id_B":"ij4ddve","created_at_utc_A":1659741317,"created_at_utc_B":1659742470,"score_A":3,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"I urge you to watch some kdrama, they just show a brief UI screen that shows the texts and has the principal cast do ADR of whats written on it. It keeps the flow and the technology in the moment.  Also, if you are a writer, a story idea about the bizarre global disruption of just cell phones might be worth exploring!","human_ref_B":"B.. But heist plots. Superhero movies. The mildest of Sci Fi. It seems like they're almost always able to communicate at all times with ear pieces.   Also, if you wanna show screens or texts, a simple fix is to just overlay the UI and text bubbles onto the screen. I can't think of an instant example, but they do this in anime a lot. (Maybe because it's stylized and it's not too jarring compared to live action? Either way. You can do the same trick if you're fine with that much editing magic.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1153.0,"score_ratio":14.0}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij43we1","c_root_id_B":"ij4jroy","created_at_utc_A":1659738210,"created_at_utc_B":1659745464,"score_A":26,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"I mean... the way you phrase it makes it feel like that's the *only* reason why they're set there - which obviously isn't true. There can be plenty of reasons why they're set in a certain time period - just think of biographical movies.","human_ref_B":"Lots of movies are set in the timeframe of the 80s and 90s because many adults now grew up in those time periods.  Other movies have been set in the past about the same number of years for when they were made, like American Graffiti or Back to the Future.  Those movies weren't set back then to avoid cell phone issues, but to appeal to adults with nostalgia.  The nostalgia time frame is different now, because of the different ages of adults now.    Cell phones providing an obstacle to the story being told can be avoided in a modern setting pretty easily as well.  The zombie apocalypse has shut down all the cell phone towers.  This place is out in the boonies, and doesn't get good cell phone reception.  We traveled back in time, and they don't have cell phones in King Arthur's court.  Kirk and Spock have beamed down to the planet, but now there's an ion storm, and it's interfering with our communicators.  We are the heroic rebel freedom fighters against the totalitarian government, who monitor all communication devices.  We took a trip to camp out in the woods, and Johnny, the irresponsible jock, was supposed to bring the phones.  Guess what Johnny forgot to do?  Oops, I dropped my phone on a rock and it's smashed.  Oops, I dropped my cell phone in the lake and it shorted out.  The axe murderer in the middle of the woods snuck into our tent to steal our cell phones, then removed a vital component from our jeep.    These scenarios are really easy to come up with.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7254.0,"score_ratio":1.3846153846}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4jroy","c_root_id_B":"ij4fep3","created_at_utc_A":1659745464,"created_at_utc_B":1659743413,"score_A":36,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Lots of movies are set in the timeframe of the 80s and 90s because many adults now grew up in those time periods.  Other movies have been set in the past about the same number of years for when they were made, like American Graffiti or Back to the Future.  Those movies weren't set back then to avoid cell phone issues, but to appeal to adults with nostalgia.  The nostalgia time frame is different now, because of the different ages of adults now.    Cell phones providing an obstacle to the story being told can be avoided in a modern setting pretty easily as well.  The zombie apocalypse has shut down all the cell phone towers.  This place is out in the boonies, and doesn't get good cell phone reception.  We traveled back in time, and they don't have cell phones in King Arthur's court.  Kirk and Spock have beamed down to the planet, but now there's an ion storm, and it's interfering with our communicators.  We are the heroic rebel freedom fighters against the totalitarian government, who monitor all communication devices.  We took a trip to camp out in the woods, and Johnny, the irresponsible jock, was supposed to bring the phones.  Guess what Johnny forgot to do?  Oops, I dropped my phone on a rock and it's smashed.  Oops, I dropped my cell phone in the lake and it shorted out.  The axe murderer in the middle of the woods snuck into our tent to steal our cell phones, then removed a vital component from our jeep.    These scenarios are really easy to come up with.","human_ref_B":"Was *Lincoln* set when it was because of cell-phones or because... you know... that's when the events actually happened?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2051.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4c427","c_root_id_B":"ij4jroy","created_at_utc_A":1659741882,"created_at_utc_B":1659745464,"score_A":8,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"Is the primary issue here reading the texts that characters receive?","human_ref_B":"Lots of movies are set in the timeframe of the 80s and 90s because many adults now grew up in those time periods.  Other movies have been set in the past about the same number of years for when they were made, like American Graffiti or Back to the Future.  Those movies weren't set back then to avoid cell phone issues, but to appeal to adults with nostalgia.  The nostalgia time frame is different now, because of the different ages of adults now.    Cell phones providing an obstacle to the story being told can be avoided in a modern setting pretty easily as well.  The zombie apocalypse has shut down all the cell phone towers.  This place is out in the boonies, and doesn't get good cell phone reception.  We traveled back in time, and they don't have cell phones in King Arthur's court.  Kirk and Spock have beamed down to the planet, but now there's an ion storm, and it's interfering with our communicators.  We are the heroic rebel freedom fighters against the totalitarian government, who monitor all communication devices.  We took a trip to camp out in the woods, and Johnny, the irresponsible jock, was supposed to bring the phones.  Guess what Johnny forgot to do?  Oops, I dropped my phone on a rock and it's smashed.  Oops, I dropped my cell phone in the lake and it shorted out.  The axe murderer in the middle of the woods snuck into our tent to steal our cell phones, then removed a vital component from our jeep.    These scenarios are really easy to come up with.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3582.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij43th3","c_root_id_B":"ij4jroy","created_at_utc_A":1659738176,"created_at_utc_B":1659745464,"score_A":8,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"I\"d argue that cell phones make it easier, it gives a Deus ex machina for virtually any situation.  If anything movies are set in the 80s or 90s to cash in on all the sentimental crap pulled up by shows like Stranger Things","human_ref_B":"Lots of movies are set in the timeframe of the 80s and 90s because many adults now grew up in those time periods.  Other movies have been set in the past about the same number of years for when they were made, like American Graffiti or Back to the Future.  Those movies weren't set back then to avoid cell phone issues, but to appeal to adults with nostalgia.  The nostalgia time frame is different now, because of the different ages of adults now.    Cell phones providing an obstacle to the story being told can be avoided in a modern setting pretty easily as well.  The zombie apocalypse has shut down all the cell phone towers.  This place is out in the boonies, and doesn't get good cell phone reception.  We traveled back in time, and they don't have cell phones in King Arthur's court.  Kirk and Spock have beamed down to the planet, but now there's an ion storm, and it's interfering with our communicators.  We are the heroic rebel freedom fighters against the totalitarian government, who monitor all communication devices.  We took a trip to camp out in the woods, and Johnny, the irresponsible jock, was supposed to bring the phones.  Guess what Johnny forgot to do?  Oops, I dropped my phone on a rock and it's smashed.  Oops, I dropped my cell phone in the lake and it shorted out.  The axe murderer in the middle of the woods snuck into our tent to steal our cell phones, then removed a vital component from our jeep.    These scenarios are really easy to come up with.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7288.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4jroy","c_root_id_B":"ij4d8n5","created_at_utc_A":1659745464,"created_at_utc_B":1659742403,"score_A":36,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Lots of movies are set in the timeframe of the 80s and 90s because many adults now grew up in those time periods.  Other movies have been set in the past about the same number of years for when they were made, like American Graffiti or Back to the Future.  Those movies weren't set back then to avoid cell phone issues, but to appeal to adults with nostalgia.  The nostalgia time frame is different now, because of the different ages of adults now.    Cell phones providing an obstacle to the story being told can be avoided in a modern setting pretty easily as well.  The zombie apocalypse has shut down all the cell phone towers.  This place is out in the boonies, and doesn't get good cell phone reception.  We traveled back in time, and they don't have cell phones in King Arthur's court.  Kirk and Spock have beamed down to the planet, but now there's an ion storm, and it's interfering with our communicators.  We are the heroic rebel freedom fighters against the totalitarian government, who monitor all communication devices.  We took a trip to camp out in the woods, and Johnny, the irresponsible jock, was supposed to bring the phones.  Guess what Johnny forgot to do?  Oops, I dropped my phone on a rock and it's smashed.  Oops, I dropped my cell phone in the lake and it shorted out.  The axe murderer in the middle of the woods snuck into our tent to steal our cell phones, then removed a vital component from our jeep.    These scenarios are really easy to come up with.","human_ref_B":"I don't think the creators\/writers of these shows are motivated to pick a time period based on how easy it is or isn't to include or exclude cell phones. There are just so many other things that go into what and why something is made.  We're seeing stories from this time largely because of generational timing and market forces. The current wave of new creators getting budgets to make things is full of a lot of millennials, who are more likely to create content from this time period because it includes their formative years and lived experiences. There's also a \"nostalgia\" trend in the market, again driven by millennials, that means stories from these time periods are more likely to be greenlit to target that audience.  Those two things are far more explanatory of why content is made about these times rather than \"because writers find it challenging to include cell phones in stories.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3061.0,"score_ratio":12.0}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4jroy","c_root_id_B":"ij4gky4","created_at_utc_A":1659745464,"created_at_utc_B":1659743965,"score_A":36,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Lots of movies are set in the timeframe of the 80s and 90s because many adults now grew up in those time periods.  Other movies have been set in the past about the same number of years for when they were made, like American Graffiti or Back to the Future.  Those movies weren't set back then to avoid cell phone issues, but to appeal to adults with nostalgia.  The nostalgia time frame is different now, because of the different ages of adults now.    Cell phones providing an obstacle to the story being told can be avoided in a modern setting pretty easily as well.  The zombie apocalypse has shut down all the cell phone towers.  This place is out in the boonies, and doesn't get good cell phone reception.  We traveled back in time, and they don't have cell phones in King Arthur's court.  Kirk and Spock have beamed down to the planet, but now there's an ion storm, and it's interfering with our communicators.  We are the heroic rebel freedom fighters against the totalitarian government, who monitor all communication devices.  We took a trip to camp out in the woods, and Johnny, the irresponsible jock, was supposed to bring the phones.  Guess what Johnny forgot to do?  Oops, I dropped my phone on a rock and it's smashed.  Oops, I dropped my cell phone in the lake and it shorted out.  The axe murderer in the middle of the woods snuck into our tent to steal our cell phones, then removed a vital component from our jeep.    These scenarios are really easy to come up with.","human_ref_B":"So if someone is writing a screenplay set in Ancient Rome they\u2019re only doing to get around cell phones?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1499.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4avnd","c_root_id_B":"ij4jroy","created_at_utc_A":1659741317,"created_at_utc_B":1659745464,"score_A":3,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"I urge you to watch some kdrama, they just show a brief UI screen that shows the texts and has the principal cast do ADR of whats written on it. It keeps the flow and the technology in the moment.  Also, if you are a writer, a story idea about the bizarre global disruption of just cell phones might be worth exploring!","human_ref_B":"Lots of movies are set in the timeframe of the 80s and 90s because many adults now grew up in those time periods.  Other movies have been set in the past about the same number of years for when they were made, like American Graffiti or Back to the Future.  Those movies weren't set back then to avoid cell phone issues, but to appeal to adults with nostalgia.  The nostalgia time frame is different now, because of the different ages of adults now.    Cell phones providing an obstacle to the story being told can be avoided in a modern setting pretty easily as well.  The zombie apocalypse has shut down all the cell phone towers.  This place is out in the boonies, and doesn't get good cell phone reception.  We traveled back in time, and they don't have cell phones in King Arthur's court.  Kirk and Spock have beamed down to the planet, but now there's an ion storm, and it's interfering with our communicators.  We are the heroic rebel freedom fighters against the totalitarian government, who monitor all communication devices.  We took a trip to camp out in the woods, and Johnny, the irresponsible jock, was supposed to bring the phones.  Guess what Johnny forgot to do?  Oops, I dropped my phone on a rock and it's smashed.  Oops, I dropped my cell phone in the lake and it shorted out.  The axe murderer in the middle of the woods snuck into our tent to steal our cell phones, then removed a vital component from our jeep.    These scenarios are really easy to come up with.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4147.0,"score_ratio":12.0}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij43we1","c_root_id_B":"ij43th3","created_at_utc_A":1659738210,"created_at_utc_B":1659738176,"score_A":26,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I mean... the way you phrase it makes it feel like that's the *only* reason why they're set there - which obviously isn't true. There can be plenty of reasons why they're set in a certain time period - just think of biographical movies.","human_ref_B":"I\"d argue that cell phones make it easier, it gives a Deus ex machina for virtually any situation.  If anything movies are set in the 80s or 90s to cash in on all the sentimental crap pulled up by shows like Stranger Things","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4fep3","c_root_id_B":"ij4c427","created_at_utc_A":1659743413,"created_at_utc_B":1659741882,"score_A":18,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Was *Lincoln* set when it was because of cell-phones or because... you know... that's when the events actually happened?","human_ref_B":"Is the primary issue here reading the texts that characters receive?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1531.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4fep3","c_root_id_B":"ij43th3","created_at_utc_A":1659743413,"created_at_utc_B":1659738176,"score_A":18,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Was *Lincoln* set when it was because of cell-phones or because... you know... that's when the events actually happened?","human_ref_B":"I\"d argue that cell phones make it easier, it gives a Deus ex machina for virtually any situation.  If anything movies are set in the 80s or 90s to cash in on all the sentimental crap pulled up by shows like Stranger Things","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5237.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4d8n5","c_root_id_B":"ij4fep3","created_at_utc_A":1659742403,"created_at_utc_B":1659743413,"score_A":3,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I don't think the creators\/writers of these shows are motivated to pick a time period based on how easy it is or isn't to include or exclude cell phones. There are just so many other things that go into what and why something is made.  We're seeing stories from this time largely because of generational timing and market forces. The current wave of new creators getting budgets to make things is full of a lot of millennials, who are more likely to create content from this time period because it includes their formative years and lived experiences. There's also a \"nostalgia\" trend in the market, again driven by millennials, that means stories from these time periods are more likely to be greenlit to target that audience.  Those two things are far more explanatory of why content is made about these times rather than \"because writers find it challenging to include cell phones in stories.\"","human_ref_B":"Was *Lincoln* set when it was because of cell-phones or because... you know... that's when the events actually happened?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1010.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4fep3","c_root_id_B":"ij4avnd","created_at_utc_A":1659743413,"created_at_utc_B":1659741317,"score_A":18,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Was *Lincoln* set when it was because of cell-phones or because... you know... that's when the events actually happened?","human_ref_B":"I urge you to watch some kdrama, they just show a brief UI screen that shows the texts and has the principal cast do ADR of whats written on it. It keeps the flow and the technology in the moment.  Also, if you are a writer, a story idea about the bizarre global disruption of just cell phones might be worth exploring!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2096.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4c427","c_root_id_B":"ij4wr4g","created_at_utc_A":1659741882,"created_at_utc_B":1659751732,"score_A":8,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Is the primary issue here reading the texts that characters receive?","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s nothing stopping a writer from just not including cell phones in the modern day, for example Umbrella Academy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9850.0,"score_ratio":2.125}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij43th3","c_root_id_B":"ij4wr4g","created_at_utc_A":1659738176,"created_at_utc_B":1659751732,"score_A":8,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"I\"d argue that cell phones make it easier, it gives a Deus ex machina for virtually any situation.  If anything movies are set in the 80s or 90s to cash in on all the sentimental crap pulled up by shows like Stranger Things","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s nothing stopping a writer from just not including cell phones in the modern day, for example Umbrella Academy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13556.0,"score_ratio":2.125}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4wr4g","c_root_id_B":"ij4d8n5","created_at_utc_A":1659751732,"created_at_utc_B":1659742403,"score_A":17,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There\u2019s nothing stopping a writer from just not including cell phones in the modern day, for example Umbrella Academy","human_ref_B":"I don't think the creators\/writers of these shows are motivated to pick a time period based on how easy it is or isn't to include or exclude cell phones. There are just so many other things that go into what and why something is made.  We're seeing stories from this time largely because of generational timing and market forces. The current wave of new creators getting budgets to make things is full of a lot of millennials, who are more likely to create content from this time period because it includes their formative years and lived experiences. There's also a \"nostalgia\" trend in the market, again driven by millennials, that means stories from these time periods are more likely to be greenlit to target that audience.  Those two things are far more explanatory of why content is made about these times rather than \"because writers find it challenging to include cell phones in stories.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9329.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4wr4g","c_root_id_B":"ij4gky4","created_at_utc_A":1659751732,"created_at_utc_B":1659743965,"score_A":17,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There\u2019s nothing stopping a writer from just not including cell phones in the modern day, for example Umbrella Academy","human_ref_B":"So if someone is writing a screenplay set in Ancient Rome they\u2019re only doing to get around cell phones?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7767.0,"score_ratio":2.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4lt9i","c_root_id_B":"ij4wr4g","created_at_utc_A":1659746445,"created_at_utc_B":1659751732,"score_A":4,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"I have the opposite pet peeve. So many misunderstanding to create drama that just would not exist.   *Beep beep beep* \"hey babe, that woman who hates you and is always trying to sleep with me just showed me a picture of you with in another man's lap. Oh, you fell there and she took a picture real quick? That makes sense. Good thing I called you instead of sleeping with her out of revenge which would have led to several weeks worth of 42 minute snippets of drama.\"  I mean that's a stupid example but I feel like it gets my point across.","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s nothing stopping a writer from just not including cell phones in the modern day, for example Umbrella Academy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5287.0,"score_ratio":4.25}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4wr4g","c_root_id_B":"ij4avnd","created_at_utc_A":1659751732,"created_at_utc_B":1659741317,"score_A":17,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There\u2019s nothing stopping a writer from just not including cell phones in the modern day, for example Umbrella Academy","human_ref_B":"I urge you to watch some kdrama, they just show a brief UI screen that shows the texts and has the principal cast do ADR of whats written on it. It keeps the flow and the technology in the moment.  Also, if you are a writer, a story idea about the bizarre global disruption of just cell phones might be worth exploring!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10415.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4nki5","c_root_id_B":"ij4wr4g","created_at_utc_A":1659747286,"created_at_utc_B":1659751732,"score_A":3,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"This is sort of an unfalsifiable CMV.  Are you saying that ALL movies set in the late 1900s are doing so to avoid the plot holes that cell phones create?  Or that SOME movies do it for that reason?  Would one good reason (besides the cell phone thing) be enough to change your view?  This posts seems like an r\/showerthoughts thread disguised as a CMV.","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s nothing stopping a writer from just not including cell phones in the modern day, for example Umbrella Academy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4446.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4c427","c_root_id_B":"ij4avnd","created_at_utc_A":1659741882,"created_at_utc_B":1659741317,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Is the primary issue here reading the texts that characters receive?","human_ref_B":"I urge you to watch some kdrama, they just show a brief UI screen that shows the texts and has the principal cast do ADR of whats written on it. It keeps the flow and the technology in the moment.  Also, if you are a writer, a story idea about the bizarre global disruption of just cell phones might be worth exploring!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":565.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4d8n5","c_root_id_B":"ij4gky4","created_at_utc_A":1659742403,"created_at_utc_B":1659743965,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I don't think the creators\/writers of these shows are motivated to pick a time period based on how easy it is or isn't to include or exclude cell phones. There are just so many other things that go into what and why something is made.  We're seeing stories from this time largely because of generational timing and market forces. The current wave of new creators getting budgets to make things is full of a lot of millennials, who are more likely to create content from this time period because it includes their formative years and lived experiences. There's also a \"nostalgia\" trend in the market, again driven by millennials, that means stories from these time periods are more likely to be greenlit to target that audience.  Those two things are far more explanatory of why content is made about these times rather than \"because writers find it challenging to include cell phones in stories.\"","human_ref_B":"So if someone is writing a screenplay set in Ancient Rome they\u2019re only doing to get around cell phones?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1562.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4d8n5","c_root_id_B":"ij4lt9i","created_at_utc_A":1659742403,"created_at_utc_B":1659746445,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I don't think the creators\/writers of these shows are motivated to pick a time period based on how easy it is or isn't to include or exclude cell phones. There are just so many other things that go into what and why something is made.  We're seeing stories from this time largely because of generational timing and market forces. The current wave of new creators getting budgets to make things is full of a lot of millennials, who are more likely to create content from this time period because it includes their formative years and lived experiences. There's also a \"nostalgia\" trend in the market, again driven by millennials, that means stories from these time periods are more likely to be greenlit to target that audience.  Those two things are far more explanatory of why content is made about these times rather than \"because writers find it challenging to include cell phones in stories.\"","human_ref_B":"I have the opposite pet peeve. So many misunderstanding to create drama that just would not exist.   *Beep beep beep* \"hey babe, that woman who hates you and is always trying to sleep with me just showed me a picture of you with in another man's lap. Oh, you fell there and she took a picture real quick? That makes sense. Good thing I called you instead of sleeping with her out of revenge which would have led to several weeks worth of 42 minute snippets of drama.\"  I mean that's a stupid example but I feel like it gets my point across.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4042.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4gky4","c_root_id_B":"ij4avnd","created_at_utc_A":1659743965,"created_at_utc_B":1659741317,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So if someone is writing a screenplay set in Ancient Rome they\u2019re only doing to get around cell phones?","human_ref_B":"I urge you to watch some kdrama, they just show a brief UI screen that shows the texts and has the principal cast do ADR of whats written on it. It keeps the flow and the technology in the moment.  Also, if you are a writer, a story idea about the bizarre global disruption of just cell phones might be worth exploring!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2648.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"wh73am","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Movies and shows that take place pre-2000s are set in that time because cell phones make writing more difficult If you think about all the shows\/movies out there, those that take place in the 80s and 90s not only give a certain amount of nostalgia for people like me, but they also bypass the issue of cell phones.   One of the most annoying things for me in modern entertainment is the use of cell phones. I hate when I can't read the texts on a phone and overall feel like modern technology is a distraction to the story in most cases. Certain shows\/movies do it well, but still I love the lack of internet and connectivity in shows like Stranger Things and movies like Black Phone (REALLY love this movie btw).","c_root_id_A":"ij4lt9i","c_root_id_B":"ij4avnd","created_at_utc_A":1659746445,"created_at_utc_B":1659741317,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I have the opposite pet peeve. So many misunderstanding to create drama that just would not exist.   *Beep beep beep* \"hey babe, that woman who hates you and is always trying to sleep with me just showed me a picture of you with in another man's lap. Oh, you fell there and she took a picture real quick? That makes sense. Good thing I called you instead of sleeping with her out of revenge which would have led to several weeks worth of 42 minute snippets of drama.\"  I mean that's a stupid example but I feel like it gets my point across.","human_ref_B":"I urge you to watch some kdrama, they just show a brief UI screen that shows the texts and has the principal cast do ADR of whats written on it. It keeps the flow and the technology in the moment.  Also, if you are a writer, a story idea about the bizarre global disruption of just cell phones might be worth exploring!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5128.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"kqup7p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: They say a relationship won\u2019t solve any of your problems but literally every single person I know had a \u2018glow up\u2019 after finding a girlfriend and their lives all seem to be much better now. My view is that finding a significant other DOES, in fact, solve many of life\u2019s problems. I think I\u2019ve said it all in the title, but yeah. If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship. I think a lot of people would, in fact, benefit immensely from someone falling in love with them, caring for them and sharing some of life\u2019s burdens with them. When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better and I don\u2019t know why there are so many people pretending like it won\u2019t.","c_root_id_A":"gi5ywr4","c_root_id_B":"gi5xten","created_at_utc_A":1609839523,"created_at_utc_B":1609838403,"score_A":59,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"To modify your view here:  >If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship  Typically, when people are telling someone to get their life together before getting into a relationship, it's because that person not only doesn't have a handle on things for themselves, they also aren't having success at finding relationships either - which makes sense, as many people don't want to enter into a relationship with an adult who doesn't have their own life together. So, for these folks, using relationships as a tool to get yourself together isn't feasible.  &#x200B;  And indeed, many people have their life well and truly together before they enter a relationship. For those folks, relationships add the happiness of being in a relationship on top of a life that is already well set up. They don't have to spend their time \/ energy \"fixing up\" a partner, or be \"fixed up\" themselves.  For other people, romantic relationships may be one of the few \/ only ways they get feedback from another person who is close to them, who gives them advice that they will listen to. In those cases, they may be more motivated \/ willing to make improvements in their life in order to be able to operate in \/ benefit from a partnership.  But of course, romantic relationships aren't the only reason or way to get your life together. It's something you can absolutely do on your own, and be motivated to do for your own personal benefit as an individual. Because in general, people who have their life together are better off, whether single or not, and are likely to make better partners.  Also, as a counter example to your observation, there seem to be plenty of folks who don't have their lives together, and also don't get their lives together in their relationships either ...","human_ref_B":"Correlation does not imply causation. What you may be observing is people who dealt with an underlying problem that was impeding them, and as a result they became happier, improved their standards of living, and entered a relationship, or people who were generally content with what you perceived as a lower standard of living, and changed their lives to what appears to be better to you as a result of entering a relationship.  Moreover, what people mean by \"a relationship won't solve any of your problems\" is that while having a partner can help and encourage you to improve yourself, you won't just immediately get better by entering a relationship, so that you shouldn't hinge your well-being on the notion that finding a partner will help you and try to solve your own problems while looking for a partner.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1120.0,"score_ratio":4.5384615385}
+{"post_id":"kqup7p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: They say a relationship won\u2019t solve any of your problems but literally every single person I know had a \u2018glow up\u2019 after finding a girlfriend and their lives all seem to be much better now. My view is that finding a significant other DOES, in fact, solve many of life\u2019s problems. I think I\u2019ve said it all in the title, but yeah. If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship. I think a lot of people would, in fact, benefit immensely from someone falling in love with them, caring for them and sharing some of life\u2019s burdens with them. When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better and I don\u2019t know why there are so many people pretending like it won\u2019t.","c_root_id_A":"gi5ypsj","c_root_id_B":"gi5ywr4","created_at_utc_A":1609839329,"created_at_utc_B":1609839523,"score_A":4,"score_B":59,"human_ref_A":"Both sides of the spectrum have a bit of truth in them. Having people around you that you care for and that care for you is quite a healthy thing to have in life. On the other hand, many people fall into the trap of making their happiness dependant on others, when we all know that people are flaky, unreliable and difficult to read without an appropriate cue. If perhaps you were to consider the internal state of someone who is  focussing on getting a significant other, you couldn't possibly say that it is healthy.","human_ref_B":"To modify your view here:  >If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship  Typically, when people are telling someone to get their life together before getting into a relationship, it's because that person not only doesn't have a handle on things for themselves, they also aren't having success at finding relationships either - which makes sense, as many people don't want to enter into a relationship with an adult who doesn't have their own life together. So, for these folks, using relationships as a tool to get yourself together isn't feasible.  &#x200B;  And indeed, many people have their life well and truly together before they enter a relationship. For those folks, relationships add the happiness of being in a relationship on top of a life that is already well set up. They don't have to spend their time \/ energy \"fixing up\" a partner, or be \"fixed up\" themselves.  For other people, romantic relationships may be one of the few \/ only ways they get feedback from another person who is close to them, who gives them advice that they will listen to. In those cases, they may be more motivated \/ willing to make improvements in their life in order to be able to operate in \/ benefit from a partnership.  But of course, romantic relationships aren't the only reason or way to get your life together. It's something you can absolutely do on your own, and be motivated to do for your own personal benefit as an individual. Because in general, people who have their life together are better off, whether single or not, and are likely to make better partners.  Also, as a counter example to your observation, there seem to be plenty of folks who don't have their lives together, and also don't get their lives together in their relationships either ...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":194.0,"score_ratio":14.75}
+{"post_id":"kqup7p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: They say a relationship won\u2019t solve any of your problems but literally every single person I know had a \u2018glow up\u2019 after finding a girlfriend and their lives all seem to be much better now. My view is that finding a significant other DOES, in fact, solve many of life\u2019s problems. I think I\u2019ve said it all in the title, but yeah. If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship. I think a lot of people would, in fact, benefit immensely from someone falling in love with them, caring for them and sharing some of life\u2019s burdens with them. When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better and I don\u2019t know why there are so many people pretending like it won\u2019t.","c_root_id_A":"gi5ymlf","c_root_id_B":"gi5ywr4","created_at_utc_A":1609839238,"created_at_utc_B":1609839523,"score_A":3,"score_B":59,"human_ref_A":">When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better  Well this seems to be the crux of the problem. If you need validation and attention to the point that you can't live fine without it, then why wouldn't you be happier when you get it. But, to make a crude methaphor, so does an addict when he satisfies his addiction. If you can only be happy in a relationship, when one ends you will be looking franticly for next one and that may lead, in a worst case, very abusive relationships.  I would never deny that romantic relationships are beneficial, but there is a point at which you must ask yourself, \"if I only strive for success and take care of myself when it's for someone else, why can't I do it for myself?\".","human_ref_B":"To modify your view here:  >If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship  Typically, when people are telling someone to get their life together before getting into a relationship, it's because that person not only doesn't have a handle on things for themselves, they also aren't having success at finding relationships either - which makes sense, as many people don't want to enter into a relationship with an adult who doesn't have their own life together. So, for these folks, using relationships as a tool to get yourself together isn't feasible.  &#x200B;  And indeed, many people have their life well and truly together before they enter a relationship. For those folks, relationships add the happiness of being in a relationship on top of a life that is already well set up. They don't have to spend their time \/ energy \"fixing up\" a partner, or be \"fixed up\" themselves.  For other people, romantic relationships may be one of the few \/ only ways they get feedback from another person who is close to them, who gives them advice that they will listen to. In those cases, they may be more motivated \/ willing to make improvements in their life in order to be able to operate in \/ benefit from a partnership.  But of course, romantic relationships aren't the only reason or way to get your life together. It's something you can absolutely do on your own, and be motivated to do for your own personal benefit as an individual. Because in general, people who have their life together are better off, whether single or not, and are likely to make better partners.  Also, as a counter example to your observation, there seem to be plenty of folks who don't have their lives together, and also don't get their lives together in their relationships either ...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":285.0,"score_ratio":19.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"kqup7p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: They say a relationship won\u2019t solve any of your problems but literally every single person I know had a \u2018glow up\u2019 after finding a girlfriend and their lives all seem to be much better now. My view is that finding a significant other DOES, in fact, solve many of life\u2019s problems. I think I\u2019ve said it all in the title, but yeah. If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship. I think a lot of people would, in fact, benefit immensely from someone falling in love with them, caring for them and sharing some of life\u2019s burdens with them. When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better and I don\u2019t know why there are so many people pretending like it won\u2019t.","c_root_id_A":"gi5xten","c_root_id_B":"gi60y94","created_at_utc_A":1609838403,"created_at_utc_B":1609841616,"score_A":13,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"Correlation does not imply causation. What you may be observing is people who dealt with an underlying problem that was impeding them, and as a result they became happier, improved their standards of living, and entered a relationship, or people who were generally content with what you perceived as a lower standard of living, and changed their lives to what appears to be better to you as a result of entering a relationship.  Moreover, what people mean by \"a relationship won't solve any of your problems\" is that while having a partner can help and encourage you to improve yourself, you won't just immediately get better by entering a relationship, so that you shouldn't hinge your well-being on the notion that finding a partner will help you and try to solve your own problems while looking for a partner.","human_ref_B":"Being in a good relationship is better than being single.  But being single is *miiiiiiiiiles* better than being in a bad relationship.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3213.0,"score_ratio":2.3846153846}
+{"post_id":"kqup7p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: They say a relationship won\u2019t solve any of your problems but literally every single person I know had a \u2018glow up\u2019 after finding a girlfriend and their lives all seem to be much better now. My view is that finding a significant other DOES, in fact, solve many of life\u2019s problems. I think I\u2019ve said it all in the title, but yeah. If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship. I think a lot of people would, in fact, benefit immensely from someone falling in love with them, caring for them and sharing some of life\u2019s burdens with them. When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better and I don\u2019t know why there are so many people pretending like it won\u2019t.","c_root_id_A":"gi60y94","c_root_id_B":"gi5ypsj","created_at_utc_A":1609841616,"created_at_utc_B":1609839329,"score_A":31,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Being in a good relationship is better than being single.  But being single is *miiiiiiiiiles* better than being in a bad relationship.","human_ref_B":"Both sides of the spectrum have a bit of truth in them. Having people around you that you care for and that care for you is quite a healthy thing to have in life. On the other hand, many people fall into the trap of making their happiness dependant on others, when we all know that people are flaky, unreliable and difficult to read without an appropriate cue. If perhaps you were to consider the internal state of someone who is  focussing on getting a significant other, you couldn't possibly say that it is healthy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2287.0,"score_ratio":7.75}
+{"post_id":"kqup7p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: They say a relationship won\u2019t solve any of your problems but literally every single person I know had a \u2018glow up\u2019 after finding a girlfriend and their lives all seem to be much better now. My view is that finding a significant other DOES, in fact, solve many of life\u2019s problems. I think I\u2019ve said it all in the title, but yeah. If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship. I think a lot of people would, in fact, benefit immensely from someone falling in love with them, caring for them and sharing some of life\u2019s burdens with them. When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better and I don\u2019t know why there are so many people pretending like it won\u2019t.","c_root_id_A":"gi5ymlf","c_root_id_B":"gi60y94","created_at_utc_A":1609839238,"created_at_utc_B":1609841616,"score_A":3,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":">When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better  Well this seems to be the crux of the problem. If you need validation and attention to the point that you can't live fine without it, then why wouldn't you be happier when you get it. But, to make a crude methaphor, so does an addict when he satisfies his addiction. If you can only be happy in a relationship, when one ends you will be looking franticly for next one and that may lead, in a worst case, very abusive relationships.  I would never deny that romantic relationships are beneficial, but there is a point at which you must ask yourself, \"if I only strive for success and take care of myself when it's for someone else, why can't I do it for myself?\".","human_ref_B":"Being in a good relationship is better than being single.  But being single is *miiiiiiiiiles* better than being in a bad relationship.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2378.0,"score_ratio":10.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"kqup7p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: They say a relationship won\u2019t solve any of your problems but literally every single person I know had a \u2018glow up\u2019 after finding a girlfriend and their lives all seem to be much better now. My view is that finding a significant other DOES, in fact, solve many of life\u2019s problems. I think I\u2019ve said it all in the title, but yeah. If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship. I think a lot of people would, in fact, benefit immensely from someone falling in love with them, caring for them and sharing some of life\u2019s burdens with them. When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better and I don\u2019t know why there are so many people pretending like it won\u2019t.","c_root_id_A":"gi61fxd","c_root_id_B":"gi5xten","created_at_utc_A":1609842126,"created_at_utc_B":1609838403,"score_A":25,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I've had this going in my head for a while, so here is my 2 cents on it.   I was in the process of healing when I met my GF. I've changed for the better since then, and have always attributed me being better to her being in my life.   However, I always describe her as a catalyst. A catalyst is a substance that speeds up chemical reactions basically. My gf is my catalyst, speeding up my growth.   While catalysts do help in speeding up reactions, greatly, this is not to state that the rxns cannot occur on their own. I was in the process of healing. I'm sure without her, I'd still heal, albeit at a much slower rate, but still healing.    In the end, it's your friends that put in 'more effort' because of their partners. Like catalysts, their partners helped them find meaning and happiness in life faster. But in the end catalysts remain chemically unchanged, its up to the reagents participating in the reaction (your friends' lives are the reagents) that truly matter.","human_ref_B":"Correlation does not imply causation. What you may be observing is people who dealt with an underlying problem that was impeding them, and as a result they became happier, improved their standards of living, and entered a relationship, or people who were generally content with what you perceived as a lower standard of living, and changed their lives to what appears to be better to you as a result of entering a relationship.  Moreover, what people mean by \"a relationship won't solve any of your problems\" is that while having a partner can help and encourage you to improve yourself, you won't just immediately get better by entering a relationship, so that you shouldn't hinge your well-being on the notion that finding a partner will help you and try to solve your own problems while looking for a partner.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3723.0,"score_ratio":1.9230769231}
+{"post_id":"kqup7p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: They say a relationship won\u2019t solve any of your problems but literally every single person I know had a \u2018glow up\u2019 after finding a girlfriend and their lives all seem to be much better now. My view is that finding a significant other DOES, in fact, solve many of life\u2019s problems. I think I\u2019ve said it all in the title, but yeah. If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship. I think a lot of people would, in fact, benefit immensely from someone falling in love with them, caring for them and sharing some of life\u2019s burdens with them. When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better and I don\u2019t know why there are so many people pretending like it won\u2019t.","c_root_id_A":"gi5ypsj","c_root_id_B":"gi61fxd","created_at_utc_A":1609839329,"created_at_utc_B":1609842126,"score_A":4,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Both sides of the spectrum have a bit of truth in them. Having people around you that you care for and that care for you is quite a healthy thing to have in life. On the other hand, many people fall into the trap of making their happiness dependant on others, when we all know that people are flaky, unreliable and difficult to read without an appropriate cue. If perhaps you were to consider the internal state of someone who is  focussing on getting a significant other, you couldn't possibly say that it is healthy.","human_ref_B":"I've had this going in my head for a while, so here is my 2 cents on it.   I was in the process of healing when I met my GF. I've changed for the better since then, and have always attributed me being better to her being in my life.   However, I always describe her as a catalyst. A catalyst is a substance that speeds up chemical reactions basically. My gf is my catalyst, speeding up my growth.   While catalysts do help in speeding up reactions, greatly, this is not to state that the rxns cannot occur on their own. I was in the process of healing. I'm sure without her, I'd still heal, albeit at a much slower rate, but still healing.    In the end, it's your friends that put in 'more effort' because of their partners. Like catalysts, their partners helped them find meaning and happiness in life faster. But in the end catalysts remain chemically unchanged, its up to the reagents participating in the reaction (your friends' lives are the reagents) that truly matter.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2797.0,"score_ratio":6.25}
+{"post_id":"kqup7p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: They say a relationship won\u2019t solve any of your problems but literally every single person I know had a \u2018glow up\u2019 after finding a girlfriend and their lives all seem to be much better now. My view is that finding a significant other DOES, in fact, solve many of life\u2019s problems. I think I\u2019ve said it all in the title, but yeah. If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship. I think a lot of people would, in fact, benefit immensely from someone falling in love with them, caring for them and sharing some of life\u2019s burdens with them. When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better and I don\u2019t know why there are so many people pretending like it won\u2019t.","c_root_id_A":"gi61fxd","c_root_id_B":"gi5ymlf","created_at_utc_A":1609842126,"created_at_utc_B":1609839238,"score_A":25,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I've had this going in my head for a while, so here is my 2 cents on it.   I was in the process of healing when I met my GF. I've changed for the better since then, and have always attributed me being better to her being in my life.   However, I always describe her as a catalyst. A catalyst is a substance that speeds up chemical reactions basically. My gf is my catalyst, speeding up my growth.   While catalysts do help in speeding up reactions, greatly, this is not to state that the rxns cannot occur on their own. I was in the process of healing. I'm sure without her, I'd still heal, albeit at a much slower rate, but still healing.    In the end, it's your friends that put in 'more effort' because of their partners. Like catalysts, their partners helped them find meaning and happiness in life faster. But in the end catalysts remain chemically unchanged, its up to the reagents participating in the reaction (your friends' lives are the reagents) that truly matter.","human_ref_B":">When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better  Well this seems to be the crux of the problem. If you need validation and attention to the point that you can't live fine without it, then why wouldn't you be happier when you get it. But, to make a crude methaphor, so does an addict when he satisfies his addiction. If you can only be happy in a relationship, when one ends you will be looking franticly for next one and that may lead, in a worst case, very abusive relationships.  I would never deny that romantic relationships are beneficial, but there is a point at which you must ask yourself, \"if I only strive for success and take care of myself when it's for someone else, why can't I do it for myself?\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2888.0,"score_ratio":8.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"kqup7p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: They say a relationship won\u2019t solve any of your problems but literally every single person I know had a \u2018glow up\u2019 after finding a girlfriend and their lives all seem to be much better now. My view is that finding a significant other DOES, in fact, solve many of life\u2019s problems. I think I\u2019ve said it all in the title, but yeah. If people shouldn\u2019t \u201cfocus on getting a significant other, it won\u2019t fix your life\u201d then how come there are so many so-called \u2018losers\u2019 whose lives miraculously seem to get so much better once they have a significant other? I\u2019ve seen people go from practically looking like bums all the time to suddenly dressing well, moving into new apartments, getting better jobs, and just overall becoming happier, more well-rounded, more interesting and positive people AFTER getting into a relationship. I think a lot of people would, in fact, benefit immensely from someone falling in love with them, caring for them and sharing some of life\u2019s burdens with them. When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better and I don\u2019t know why there are so many people pretending like it won\u2019t.","c_root_id_A":"gi5ypsj","c_root_id_B":"gi5ymlf","created_at_utc_A":1609839329,"created_at_utc_B":1609839238,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Both sides of the spectrum have a bit of truth in them. Having people around you that you care for and that care for you is quite a healthy thing to have in life. On the other hand, many people fall into the trap of making their happiness dependant on others, when we all know that people are flaky, unreliable and difficult to read without an appropriate cue. If perhaps you were to consider the internal state of someone who is  focussing on getting a significant other, you couldn't possibly say that it is healthy.","human_ref_B":">When you feel seen and someone is cheering you on and supporting you, your life DOES get better  Well this seems to be the crux of the problem. If you need validation and attention to the point that you can't live fine without it, then why wouldn't you be happier when you get it. But, to make a crude methaphor, so does an addict when he satisfies his addiction. If you can only be happy in a relationship, when one ends you will be looking franticly for next one and that may lead, in a worst case, very abusive relationships.  I would never deny that romantic relationships are beneficial, but there is a point at which you must ask yourself, \"if I only strive for success and take care of myself when it's for someone else, why can't I do it for myself?\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":91.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"zot7n2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Cinemas will either die out or become a luxury brand As it stands, Cinemas are struggling for relevancy,  in my opinion they have become the definition of legacy media, no longer having a fraction of a use they once had for the following reasons:  1)Technology  Once upon  a time (not that long ago), the best you could have at home was a small and thick CRT TV.  It got the job done, but if you wanted a nice crisp viewing experience for a movie. You had to go to a cinema. Same applies for sound.But now you can easily get a half decent monitor or TV for a fraction of the cost of what they once were, So Cinemas keep pushing the envelope with 3D, IMAX, Vibrating seats, 4D and so on, for diminishing returns and increased costs to tickets.  2)Viewing Habbits  Most people nowadays watch things on their phones and tablets. Some people don't even own a TV. It has just become more practical to have all of your shows and movies on the go. Watch them while travelling, while in public transports, waiting room, on your break and so on.  3)Audience Behaviour  This is based on personal experience, but most of the times I can see a sea of phone screens once the lights go down. People not simply checking the time, but chatting or taking pictures to post online. You have teenagers screaming and running commentary througout the whole movie. You have little kids taken to movies not appropriate for them, resulting in constant chatter or screaming.  Now people will respond with \"That's the ushers failure for not dealing with them\/Why didn't you complain\". Cinemas cannot afford to lose money, so throwing out a group of 5 teens causing chaos is a no go.  Taking that into account, I'd rather watch  a movie at home. Without randos gunning for their 5 minutes of internet fame.  4)Cinemas don't earn money from movies, they are overpriced convenience stores  It's no secret that at most 30% of the ticket price goes to the cinema, but 100% of the profits from food and drinks stay in house. So if you want even a bottle of water to drink during a bloody 2 and a half hour long movie, you better be ready to pay triple the normal cost. I am here to watch a movie, not be ripped off for popcorn.  &#x200B;  Taking all of this in mind, cinemas have two options. Either to die out and havie everything go digital, removing the middle man.  Or they can become luxury brands and sell premium viewing experiences.  Change My View","c_root_id_A":"j0ow25t","c_root_id_B":"j0ou903","created_at_utc_A":1671352480,"created_at_utc_B":1671351014,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think this all depends on how we define \"luxury\" viewing experience.   Personally, the cinema's I can see surviving either   a) screen films that are outside the mainstream (e.g., foreign, classic, indy).   b) pair the movie watching experience with thing we don't typically get from your local muliplex (e.g., beer, the absence of children).    I suppose we can call option B a kind of luxury, but I think we're still talking about affordable entertainment here. These places don't need to have things like premium seating, outrageous screens or other bells and whistles to be successful.  They just need to play movies people want to see (even if it's a passionate minority), and be less annoying than a trip to the local AMC.","human_ref_B":"Nah I disagree. Cinemas are dying down and close down alot now, but they will never close down for good. Mobile streaming is killing off Cinemas yes, but that means the desire to go to to the last few remaining cinemas will be bigger than ever.   What will happen is when the numbers get really low the demand to see movies in a cinema will sky rocket all over again. Its like trying to buy the last remaining Super Man comic book on Ebay or trying to buy the last remaining Ford Mustang at an auction. People will once again find a reason to go to the theater. This will increase ticket purchases. It might not create new cinemas anytime soon. But the few remaining cinemas will often be full and desired by general public and movie fanatics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1466.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"ez20bq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: There needs to be a tax on harmful food additives and a tax cut on foods without them. Basically everything we see in the grocery store has too much stuff added into it. Added sugars and salts because they're natural preservatives, for instance. Roughly 90 percent of America's 3.5 trillion dollars of aggregate health care expenditure comes from chronic illnesses. The most dangerous of these illnesses (Besides the ones caused by cigarettes and alcohol) are mostly based on having a poor diet and exercise life. Those are of course obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  So, I'm looking for an idea that will try to tilt the economics and incentives of shopping for food in favor of healthy alternatives. I stumbled upon the idea of having a tax directly on the harmful components of food. So if an individual packaged food product has over 5% daily value of sodium, it's communicated directly into the sales tax for that product. So if it has 10% of daily value, then the sales tax would be 5%. You could work this in for excess sugars, saturated and trans fats, artificial preservatives and all manner of harmful components in food.   Obviously I don't expect cashiers at a grocery store to sit there and calculate the sales tax based on whatever is in the package. It would have to be handled by computers that would communicate the contents of what they've ordered from manufacturers directly into inventory so that it's automatically applied at the cash register and visible on the price tag on the shelf.  I understand that there would be necessary exceptions to the rule. Salt shakers for example. If a full salt shaker has 1000x your daily value of sodium, you can't very well charge 1000x the price of the product in a sales tax.  I also understand that since sugar and salt are natural preservatives, they are critical to the infrastructure of food transportation. That and the fact that sodium is very healthy for you up to a certain point are the reasons why you would start charging the tax after a daily value of 5 or 10 percent. Some sodium is necessary. It's also the case that if a food product requires that much preservation just to get to the supermarket, then it's either from too far away or it's probably not a good food product.  I see a lot of potential for this to really change people's eating habits. Ultimately, something needs to be done about American health issues stemming from diet. I don't want these taxes to range so high that it starts bankrupting companies so fast that they don't have time to change their product process. I also would want the government to properly fund diet and health related programs to better help this transition into hopefully slightly healthier lifestyles.  Let me know if you have any objections as to the efficiency or legality of such a tax. Also let me know if there are better systems of dealing with America's lack of dietary integrity.  CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fgkqquc","c_root_id_B":"fgkp095","created_at_utc_A":1580871520,"created_at_utc_B":1580870468,"score_A":15,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"You may not be aware, but soy and corn are both heavily subsidized by the US government - meaning that the government pays farmers to produce these crops even if there is no market for them. The reason corn syrup is used so often as a sugar substitute is because corn is dirt cheap due to the subsidies.  I would propose that the government stop subsidizing corn and soy, and start subsidizing broccoli, asparagus, carrots, kale, spinach, and the like. Make the healthy foods cheap instead of the nutritionally worthless starches.","human_ref_B":"No we need less government control in our lives. This is ridiculous that we think the government can make our decisions by taxing us.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1052.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"ez20bq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: There needs to be a tax on harmful food additives and a tax cut on foods without them. Basically everything we see in the grocery store has too much stuff added into it. Added sugars and salts because they're natural preservatives, for instance. Roughly 90 percent of America's 3.5 trillion dollars of aggregate health care expenditure comes from chronic illnesses. The most dangerous of these illnesses (Besides the ones caused by cigarettes and alcohol) are mostly based on having a poor diet and exercise life. Those are of course obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  So, I'm looking for an idea that will try to tilt the economics and incentives of shopping for food in favor of healthy alternatives. I stumbled upon the idea of having a tax directly on the harmful components of food. So if an individual packaged food product has over 5% daily value of sodium, it's communicated directly into the sales tax for that product. So if it has 10% of daily value, then the sales tax would be 5%. You could work this in for excess sugars, saturated and trans fats, artificial preservatives and all manner of harmful components in food.   Obviously I don't expect cashiers at a grocery store to sit there and calculate the sales tax based on whatever is in the package. It would have to be handled by computers that would communicate the contents of what they've ordered from manufacturers directly into inventory so that it's automatically applied at the cash register and visible on the price tag on the shelf.  I understand that there would be necessary exceptions to the rule. Salt shakers for example. If a full salt shaker has 1000x your daily value of sodium, you can't very well charge 1000x the price of the product in a sales tax.  I also understand that since sugar and salt are natural preservatives, they are critical to the infrastructure of food transportation. That and the fact that sodium is very healthy for you up to a certain point are the reasons why you would start charging the tax after a daily value of 5 or 10 percent. Some sodium is necessary. It's also the case that if a food product requires that much preservation just to get to the supermarket, then it's either from too far away or it's probably not a good food product.  I see a lot of potential for this to really change people's eating habits. Ultimately, something needs to be done about American health issues stemming from diet. I don't want these taxes to range so high that it starts bankrupting companies so fast that they don't have time to change their product process. I also would want the government to properly fund diet and health related programs to better help this transition into hopefully slightly healthier lifestyles.  Let me know if you have any objections as to the efficiency or legality of such a tax. Also let me know if there are better systems of dealing with America's lack of dietary integrity.  CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fgkqquc","c_root_id_B":"fgknx6u","created_at_utc_A":1580871520,"created_at_utc_B":1580869815,"score_A":15,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You may not be aware, but soy and corn are both heavily subsidized by the US government - meaning that the government pays farmers to produce these crops even if there is no market for them. The reason corn syrup is used so often as a sugar substitute is because corn is dirt cheap due to the subsidies.  I would propose that the government stop subsidizing corn and soy, and start subsidizing broccoli, asparagus, carrots, kale, spinach, and the like. Make the healthy foods cheap instead of the nutritionally worthless starches.","human_ref_B":"Basic costs of food for the poor would skyrocket to the point of near starvation, as these foods are way more affordable for them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1705.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"ez20bq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: There needs to be a tax on harmful food additives and a tax cut on foods without them. Basically everything we see in the grocery store has too much stuff added into it. Added sugars and salts because they're natural preservatives, for instance. Roughly 90 percent of America's 3.5 trillion dollars of aggregate health care expenditure comes from chronic illnesses. The most dangerous of these illnesses (Besides the ones caused by cigarettes and alcohol) are mostly based on having a poor diet and exercise life. Those are of course obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  So, I'm looking for an idea that will try to tilt the economics and incentives of shopping for food in favor of healthy alternatives. I stumbled upon the idea of having a tax directly on the harmful components of food. So if an individual packaged food product has over 5% daily value of sodium, it's communicated directly into the sales tax for that product. So if it has 10% of daily value, then the sales tax would be 5%. You could work this in for excess sugars, saturated and trans fats, artificial preservatives and all manner of harmful components in food.   Obviously I don't expect cashiers at a grocery store to sit there and calculate the sales tax based on whatever is in the package. It would have to be handled by computers that would communicate the contents of what they've ordered from manufacturers directly into inventory so that it's automatically applied at the cash register and visible on the price tag on the shelf.  I understand that there would be necessary exceptions to the rule. Salt shakers for example. If a full salt shaker has 1000x your daily value of sodium, you can't very well charge 1000x the price of the product in a sales tax.  I also understand that since sugar and salt are natural preservatives, they are critical to the infrastructure of food transportation. That and the fact that sodium is very healthy for you up to a certain point are the reasons why you would start charging the tax after a daily value of 5 or 10 percent. Some sodium is necessary. It's also the case that if a food product requires that much preservation just to get to the supermarket, then it's either from too far away or it's probably not a good food product.  I see a lot of potential for this to really change people's eating habits. Ultimately, something needs to be done about American health issues stemming from diet. I don't want these taxes to range so high that it starts bankrupting companies so fast that they don't have time to change their product process. I also would want the government to properly fund diet and health related programs to better help this transition into hopefully slightly healthier lifestyles.  Let me know if you have any objections as to the efficiency or legality of such a tax. Also let me know if there are better systems of dealing with America's lack of dietary integrity.  CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fgkqquc","c_root_id_B":"fgknxpk","created_at_utc_A":1580871520,"created_at_utc_B":1580869823,"score_A":15,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You may not be aware, but soy and corn are both heavily subsidized by the US government - meaning that the government pays farmers to produce these crops even if there is no market for them. The reason corn syrup is used so often as a sugar substitute is because corn is dirt cheap due to the subsidies.  I would propose that the government stop subsidizing corn and soy, and start subsidizing broccoli, asparagus, carrots, kale, spinach, and the like. Make the healthy foods cheap instead of the nutritionally worthless starches.","human_ref_B":"Well first of all there\u2019s no such thing as a harmful food additive, that\u2019s why we have the fda.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1697.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"ez20bq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: There needs to be a tax on harmful food additives and a tax cut on foods without them. Basically everything we see in the grocery store has too much stuff added into it. Added sugars and salts because they're natural preservatives, for instance. Roughly 90 percent of America's 3.5 trillion dollars of aggregate health care expenditure comes from chronic illnesses. The most dangerous of these illnesses (Besides the ones caused by cigarettes and alcohol) are mostly based on having a poor diet and exercise life. Those are of course obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  So, I'm looking for an idea that will try to tilt the economics and incentives of shopping for food in favor of healthy alternatives. I stumbled upon the idea of having a tax directly on the harmful components of food. So if an individual packaged food product has over 5% daily value of sodium, it's communicated directly into the sales tax for that product. So if it has 10% of daily value, then the sales tax would be 5%. You could work this in for excess sugars, saturated and trans fats, artificial preservatives and all manner of harmful components in food.   Obviously I don't expect cashiers at a grocery store to sit there and calculate the sales tax based on whatever is in the package. It would have to be handled by computers that would communicate the contents of what they've ordered from manufacturers directly into inventory so that it's automatically applied at the cash register and visible on the price tag on the shelf.  I understand that there would be necessary exceptions to the rule. Salt shakers for example. If a full salt shaker has 1000x your daily value of sodium, you can't very well charge 1000x the price of the product in a sales tax.  I also understand that since sugar and salt are natural preservatives, they are critical to the infrastructure of food transportation. That and the fact that sodium is very healthy for you up to a certain point are the reasons why you would start charging the tax after a daily value of 5 or 10 percent. Some sodium is necessary. It's also the case that if a food product requires that much preservation just to get to the supermarket, then it's either from too far away or it's probably not a good food product.  I see a lot of potential for this to really change people's eating habits. Ultimately, something needs to be done about American health issues stemming from diet. I don't want these taxes to range so high that it starts bankrupting companies so fast that they don't have time to change their product process. I also would want the government to properly fund diet and health related programs to better help this transition into hopefully slightly healthier lifestyles.  Let me know if you have any objections as to the efficiency or legality of such a tax. Also let me know if there are better systems of dealing with America's lack of dietary integrity.  CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fgkp095","c_root_id_B":"fgknx6u","created_at_utc_A":1580870468,"created_at_utc_B":1580869815,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"No we need less government control in our lives. This is ridiculous that we think the government can make our decisions by taxing us.","human_ref_B":"Basic costs of food for the poor would skyrocket to the point of near starvation, as these foods are way more affordable for them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":653.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"ez20bq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: There needs to be a tax on harmful food additives and a tax cut on foods without them. Basically everything we see in the grocery store has too much stuff added into it. Added sugars and salts because they're natural preservatives, for instance. Roughly 90 percent of America's 3.5 trillion dollars of aggregate health care expenditure comes from chronic illnesses. The most dangerous of these illnesses (Besides the ones caused by cigarettes and alcohol) are mostly based on having a poor diet and exercise life. Those are of course obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  So, I'm looking for an idea that will try to tilt the economics and incentives of shopping for food in favor of healthy alternatives. I stumbled upon the idea of having a tax directly on the harmful components of food. So if an individual packaged food product has over 5% daily value of sodium, it's communicated directly into the sales tax for that product. So if it has 10% of daily value, then the sales tax would be 5%. You could work this in for excess sugars, saturated and trans fats, artificial preservatives and all manner of harmful components in food.   Obviously I don't expect cashiers at a grocery store to sit there and calculate the sales tax based on whatever is in the package. It would have to be handled by computers that would communicate the contents of what they've ordered from manufacturers directly into inventory so that it's automatically applied at the cash register and visible on the price tag on the shelf.  I understand that there would be necessary exceptions to the rule. Salt shakers for example. If a full salt shaker has 1000x your daily value of sodium, you can't very well charge 1000x the price of the product in a sales tax.  I also understand that since sugar and salt are natural preservatives, they are critical to the infrastructure of food transportation. That and the fact that sodium is very healthy for you up to a certain point are the reasons why you would start charging the tax after a daily value of 5 or 10 percent. Some sodium is necessary. It's also the case that if a food product requires that much preservation just to get to the supermarket, then it's either from too far away or it's probably not a good food product.  I see a lot of potential for this to really change people's eating habits. Ultimately, something needs to be done about American health issues stemming from diet. I don't want these taxes to range so high that it starts bankrupting companies so fast that they don't have time to change their product process. I also would want the government to properly fund diet and health related programs to better help this transition into hopefully slightly healthier lifestyles.  Let me know if you have any objections as to the efficiency or legality of such a tax. Also let me know if there are better systems of dealing with America's lack of dietary integrity.  CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fgkp095","c_root_id_B":"fgknxpk","created_at_utc_A":1580870468,"created_at_utc_B":1580869823,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"No we need less government control in our lives. This is ridiculous that we think the government can make our decisions by taxing us.","human_ref_B":"Well first of all there\u2019s no such thing as a harmful food additive, that\u2019s why we have the fda.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":645.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"ez20bq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: There needs to be a tax on harmful food additives and a tax cut on foods without them. Basically everything we see in the grocery store has too much stuff added into it. Added sugars and salts because they're natural preservatives, for instance. Roughly 90 percent of America's 3.5 trillion dollars of aggregate health care expenditure comes from chronic illnesses. The most dangerous of these illnesses (Besides the ones caused by cigarettes and alcohol) are mostly based on having a poor diet and exercise life. Those are of course obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  So, I'm looking for an idea that will try to tilt the economics and incentives of shopping for food in favor of healthy alternatives. I stumbled upon the idea of having a tax directly on the harmful components of food. So if an individual packaged food product has over 5% daily value of sodium, it's communicated directly into the sales tax for that product. So if it has 10% of daily value, then the sales tax would be 5%. You could work this in for excess sugars, saturated and trans fats, artificial preservatives and all manner of harmful components in food.   Obviously I don't expect cashiers at a grocery store to sit there and calculate the sales tax based on whatever is in the package. It would have to be handled by computers that would communicate the contents of what they've ordered from manufacturers directly into inventory so that it's automatically applied at the cash register and visible on the price tag on the shelf.  I understand that there would be necessary exceptions to the rule. Salt shakers for example. If a full salt shaker has 1000x your daily value of sodium, you can't very well charge 1000x the price of the product in a sales tax.  I also understand that since sugar and salt are natural preservatives, they are critical to the infrastructure of food transportation. That and the fact that sodium is very healthy for you up to a certain point are the reasons why you would start charging the tax after a daily value of 5 or 10 percent. Some sodium is necessary. It's also the case that if a food product requires that much preservation just to get to the supermarket, then it's either from too far away or it's probably not a good food product.  I see a lot of potential for this to really change people's eating habits. Ultimately, something needs to be done about American health issues stemming from diet. I don't want these taxes to range so high that it starts bankrupting companies so fast that they don't have time to change their product process. I also would want the government to properly fund diet and health related programs to better help this transition into hopefully slightly healthier lifestyles.  Let me know if you have any objections as to the efficiency or legality of such a tax. Also let me know if there are better systems of dealing with America's lack of dietary integrity.  CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fgknx6u","c_root_id_B":"fgkrgq7","created_at_utc_A":1580869815,"created_at_utc_B":1580871970,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Basic costs of food for the poor would skyrocket to the point of near starvation, as these foods are way more affordable for them.","human_ref_B":"Why do we need taxes to change our food habits.  Cant we just take responsibility for ourselves instead of the govt forcing good habits.  I am for the govt forcing food manufacturers to put ingredient labels on our food to educate us on what we are ingesting,  but that is it.  If the citizens have the opportunity to be educated, it is govt overreach to do more to force our personal choices.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2155.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"ez20bq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: There needs to be a tax on harmful food additives and a tax cut on foods without them. Basically everything we see in the grocery store has too much stuff added into it. Added sugars and salts because they're natural preservatives, for instance. Roughly 90 percent of America's 3.5 trillion dollars of aggregate health care expenditure comes from chronic illnesses. The most dangerous of these illnesses (Besides the ones caused by cigarettes and alcohol) are mostly based on having a poor diet and exercise life. Those are of course obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  So, I'm looking for an idea that will try to tilt the economics and incentives of shopping for food in favor of healthy alternatives. I stumbled upon the idea of having a tax directly on the harmful components of food. So if an individual packaged food product has over 5% daily value of sodium, it's communicated directly into the sales tax for that product. So if it has 10% of daily value, then the sales tax would be 5%. You could work this in for excess sugars, saturated and trans fats, artificial preservatives and all manner of harmful components in food.   Obviously I don't expect cashiers at a grocery store to sit there and calculate the sales tax based on whatever is in the package. It would have to be handled by computers that would communicate the contents of what they've ordered from manufacturers directly into inventory so that it's automatically applied at the cash register and visible on the price tag on the shelf.  I understand that there would be necessary exceptions to the rule. Salt shakers for example. If a full salt shaker has 1000x your daily value of sodium, you can't very well charge 1000x the price of the product in a sales tax.  I also understand that since sugar and salt are natural preservatives, they are critical to the infrastructure of food transportation. That and the fact that sodium is very healthy for you up to a certain point are the reasons why you would start charging the tax after a daily value of 5 or 10 percent. Some sodium is necessary. It's also the case that if a food product requires that much preservation just to get to the supermarket, then it's either from too far away or it's probably not a good food product.  I see a lot of potential for this to really change people's eating habits. Ultimately, something needs to be done about American health issues stemming from diet. I don't want these taxes to range so high that it starts bankrupting companies so fast that they don't have time to change their product process. I also would want the government to properly fund diet and health related programs to better help this transition into hopefully slightly healthier lifestyles.  Let me know if you have any objections as to the efficiency or legality of such a tax. Also let me know if there are better systems of dealing with America's lack of dietary integrity.  CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fgknxpk","c_root_id_B":"fgkrgq7","created_at_utc_A":1580869823,"created_at_utc_B":1580871970,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Well first of all there\u2019s no such thing as a harmful food additive, that\u2019s why we have the fda.","human_ref_B":"Why do we need taxes to change our food habits.  Cant we just take responsibility for ourselves instead of the govt forcing good habits.  I am for the govt forcing food manufacturers to put ingredient labels on our food to educate us on what we are ingesting,  but that is it.  If the citizens have the opportunity to be educated, it is govt overreach to do more to force our personal choices.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2147.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"ez20bq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: There needs to be a tax on harmful food additives and a tax cut on foods without them. Basically everything we see in the grocery store has too much stuff added into it. Added sugars and salts because they're natural preservatives, for instance. Roughly 90 percent of America's 3.5 trillion dollars of aggregate health care expenditure comes from chronic illnesses. The most dangerous of these illnesses (Besides the ones caused by cigarettes and alcohol) are mostly based on having a poor diet and exercise life. Those are of course obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  So, I'm looking for an idea that will try to tilt the economics and incentives of shopping for food in favor of healthy alternatives. I stumbled upon the idea of having a tax directly on the harmful components of food. So if an individual packaged food product has over 5% daily value of sodium, it's communicated directly into the sales tax for that product. So if it has 10% of daily value, then the sales tax would be 5%. You could work this in for excess sugars, saturated and trans fats, artificial preservatives and all manner of harmful components in food.   Obviously I don't expect cashiers at a grocery store to sit there and calculate the sales tax based on whatever is in the package. It would have to be handled by computers that would communicate the contents of what they've ordered from manufacturers directly into inventory so that it's automatically applied at the cash register and visible on the price tag on the shelf.  I understand that there would be necessary exceptions to the rule. Salt shakers for example. If a full salt shaker has 1000x your daily value of sodium, you can't very well charge 1000x the price of the product in a sales tax.  I also understand that since sugar and salt are natural preservatives, they are critical to the infrastructure of food transportation. That and the fact that sodium is very healthy for you up to a certain point are the reasons why you would start charging the tax after a daily value of 5 or 10 percent. Some sodium is necessary. It's also the case that if a food product requires that much preservation just to get to the supermarket, then it's either from too far away or it's probably not a good food product.  I see a lot of potential for this to really change people's eating habits. Ultimately, something needs to be done about American health issues stemming from diet. I don't want these taxes to range so high that it starts bankrupting companies so fast that they don't have time to change their product process. I also would want the government to properly fund diet and health related programs to better help this transition into hopefully slightly healthier lifestyles.  Let me know if you have any objections as to the efficiency or legality of such a tax. Also let me know if there are better systems of dealing with America's lack of dietary integrity.  CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fgkso9r","c_root_id_B":"fgknx6u","created_at_utc_A":1580872738,"created_at_utc_B":1580869815,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Full disclosure I\u2019m a libertarian.  The thing is with added taxes and lowered taxes it would have to be all or none. Sugar taxes have been tried everywhere and what happens is people wanting to buy these drinks have to travel outside the county to go get what they need. Plus why should the government get involved in food? If I want to balloon up to 800 pounds and die of a heart attack at 34 then let me do that. The government should watch out for you on everything, there has to be some personal responsibility. If you have parents that teach you nutrition and hell even required health classes in school teach you. If you really want to be obese then let them be obese. This is a country where you should be able to do what you want.","human_ref_B":"Basic costs of food for the poor would skyrocket to the point of near starvation, as these foods are way more affordable for them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2923.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"ez20bq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: There needs to be a tax on harmful food additives and a tax cut on foods without them. Basically everything we see in the grocery store has too much stuff added into it. Added sugars and salts because they're natural preservatives, for instance. Roughly 90 percent of America's 3.5 trillion dollars of aggregate health care expenditure comes from chronic illnesses. The most dangerous of these illnesses (Besides the ones caused by cigarettes and alcohol) are mostly based on having a poor diet and exercise life. Those are of course obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  So, I'm looking for an idea that will try to tilt the economics and incentives of shopping for food in favor of healthy alternatives. I stumbled upon the idea of having a tax directly on the harmful components of food. So if an individual packaged food product has over 5% daily value of sodium, it's communicated directly into the sales tax for that product. So if it has 10% of daily value, then the sales tax would be 5%. You could work this in for excess sugars, saturated and trans fats, artificial preservatives and all manner of harmful components in food.   Obviously I don't expect cashiers at a grocery store to sit there and calculate the sales tax based on whatever is in the package. It would have to be handled by computers that would communicate the contents of what they've ordered from manufacturers directly into inventory so that it's automatically applied at the cash register and visible on the price tag on the shelf.  I understand that there would be necessary exceptions to the rule. Salt shakers for example. If a full salt shaker has 1000x your daily value of sodium, you can't very well charge 1000x the price of the product in a sales tax.  I also understand that since sugar and salt are natural preservatives, they are critical to the infrastructure of food transportation. That and the fact that sodium is very healthy for you up to a certain point are the reasons why you would start charging the tax after a daily value of 5 or 10 percent. Some sodium is necessary. It's also the case that if a food product requires that much preservation just to get to the supermarket, then it's either from too far away or it's probably not a good food product.  I see a lot of potential for this to really change people's eating habits. Ultimately, something needs to be done about American health issues stemming from diet. I don't want these taxes to range so high that it starts bankrupting companies so fast that they don't have time to change their product process. I also would want the government to properly fund diet and health related programs to better help this transition into hopefully slightly healthier lifestyles.  Let me know if you have any objections as to the efficiency or legality of such a tax. Also let me know if there are better systems of dealing with America's lack of dietary integrity.  CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fgknxpk","c_root_id_B":"fgkso9r","created_at_utc_A":1580869823,"created_at_utc_B":1580872738,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Well first of all there\u2019s no such thing as a harmful food additive, that\u2019s why we have the fda.","human_ref_B":"Full disclosure I\u2019m a libertarian.  The thing is with added taxes and lowered taxes it would have to be all or none. Sugar taxes have been tried everywhere and what happens is people wanting to buy these drinks have to travel outside the county to go get what they need. Plus why should the government get involved in food? If I want to balloon up to 800 pounds and die of a heart attack at 34 then let me do that. The government should watch out for you on everything, there has to be some personal responsibility. If you have parents that teach you nutrition and hell even required health classes in school teach you. If you really want to be obese then let them be obese. This is a country where you should be able to do what you want.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2915.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"ez20bq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: There needs to be a tax on harmful food additives and a tax cut on foods without them. Basically everything we see in the grocery store has too much stuff added into it. Added sugars and salts because they're natural preservatives, for instance. Roughly 90 percent of America's 3.5 trillion dollars of aggregate health care expenditure comes from chronic illnesses. The most dangerous of these illnesses (Besides the ones caused by cigarettes and alcohol) are mostly based on having a poor diet and exercise life. Those are of course obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  So, I'm looking for an idea that will try to tilt the economics and incentives of shopping for food in favor of healthy alternatives. I stumbled upon the idea of having a tax directly on the harmful components of food. So if an individual packaged food product has over 5% daily value of sodium, it's communicated directly into the sales tax for that product. So if it has 10% of daily value, then the sales tax would be 5%. You could work this in for excess sugars, saturated and trans fats, artificial preservatives and all manner of harmful components in food.   Obviously I don't expect cashiers at a grocery store to sit there and calculate the sales tax based on whatever is in the package. It would have to be handled by computers that would communicate the contents of what they've ordered from manufacturers directly into inventory so that it's automatically applied at the cash register and visible on the price tag on the shelf.  I understand that there would be necessary exceptions to the rule. Salt shakers for example. If a full salt shaker has 1000x your daily value of sodium, you can't very well charge 1000x the price of the product in a sales tax.  I also understand that since sugar and salt are natural preservatives, they are critical to the infrastructure of food transportation. That and the fact that sodium is very healthy for you up to a certain point are the reasons why you would start charging the tax after a daily value of 5 or 10 percent. Some sodium is necessary. It's also the case that if a food product requires that much preservation just to get to the supermarket, then it's either from too far away or it's probably not a good food product.  I see a lot of potential for this to really change people's eating habits. Ultimately, something needs to be done about American health issues stemming from diet. I don't want these taxes to range so high that it starts bankrupting companies so fast that they don't have time to change their product process. I also would want the government to properly fund diet and health related programs to better help this transition into hopefully slightly healthier lifestyles.  Let me know if you have any objections as to the efficiency or legality of such a tax. Also let me know if there are better systems of dealing with America's lack of dietary integrity.  CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fgl7tk8","c_root_id_B":"fglaweb","created_at_utc_A":1580885057,"created_at_utc_B":1580888690,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"In Canada and the US, many food additives are required by law. This is to fortify the nutrition in foods and prevent health deficiencies. Examples of mandatory additives include:    * Vitamin D in milk to prevent rickets * Niacin in various foods to prevent pellagra * Folic Acid in various foods to prevent children being born with neural sheath defects and to prevent folate deficiency, a type of anemia. * Vitamin C to various beverages to prevent scurvy * Iodine to table salt to prevent goitre   This process of adding nutrients to many foods is called food fortification, and helps correct many widespread public health issues.   In short, many  additives are required by law, and taxing companies who put more nutrient additives into food is a *really* bad idea.  (You may be able to select *some* additives which are not healthy, and only serve a cosmetic purpose or act as a preservative. Taxing it as a broad overall policy like this is just not the best idea, given all the good additives there are)","human_ref_B":"This idea is structurally unsound even if it seems great in the abstract.   To start, who quantifies the harmfulness of different substances? Probably the FDA, a notoriously slow moving and inefficient agency currently overburdened with handling the pharmaceutical industry.   Then you have to have some way to test and assign specific taxes to specific units of food. While this could be handled by the FDA I'm assuming it would end up being a new agency which would work closely with manufacturers and maybe a network of private labs.  We also have to consider that sales taxes are implemented by the state. Being the first federal sales tax would be problematic since states with large population centers will take issue with contributing more than they already do.  Now the products at the store and we have a huge technological and logistical issue. POS systems would have to be re-built\/re-coded. Even things like UPCs aren't perfect, sometimes they aren't recognized by the stores inventory system.  What do we do with imported products?  At every single step of the process you have the opportunity for lobbyists, corruption, and beauracracy.   I'm not an expert and I can list a half dozen problems that would be incredibly difficult to overcome. Theres no way that America is even remotely close to being able to pull something like this off without completely botching it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3633.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"rk9e0z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Taxes on capital gains should account for inflation. In my country (and I'm pretty sure its the same way in most other countries), capital gains taxes are calculated based off of nominal returns, as opposed to real returns.  Returns that aren't greater than inflation shouldn't be considered profits, as they do not represent any increase in buying power.  As such, when calculating return we should subtract the inflation rate.    &#x200B;  I foresee a few objections to my proposal, and here are my responses:    1.  My proposal would lower taxes:  Whether the income or capital gains tax rate should be changed is a different CMV post.  Regardless of the tax rate, returns should be measured accurately. 2. This would only benefit those who own stock\/bonds:  Lower income people tend to have a disproportionate amount of their savings in cash, which does not generate a return.  Under my proposed system, they would be considered to have significant \"capital losses\" which would provide a tax benefit.  And regardless of who it would benefit, my proposed system is fair and accurate.","c_root_id_A":"hp8yx05","c_root_id_B":"hp8tn56","created_at_utc_A":1639968700,"created_at_utc_B":1639966130,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Gains themselves are affected by inflation - this would essentially be double-counting.  The gains themselves tell us what happened to the investment, trying to think that these gains are somehow \"divorced\" from inflation is to drastically overthink the situation.  For example, your investment in a company that sell widgets charges more for widgets in a year with high inflation compared to the prior rate so their growth rate is higher, their revenue is higher and their margins in real dollars are higher.  AKA - your investment goes up more in real dollars and therefore your taxes do as well.  If you changed the percentage of taxation you'd be doubling up.  Capital losses come in the for of increased costs for expenses that flow to deductions.  TLDR: inflation itself handles this.","human_ref_B":"In one way of looking at this, they already do account for inflation in that you are paying them with post-inflation dollars. If you were going to pay your taxes based on pre-inflation dollar values, you should also pay them with pre-inflation dollars, but since you would be paying at the end you'd need to adjust your payment for inflation as well.  This would raise the rate in some cases and lower it in others, but would generally be even more overcomplicated than the current system.  Edit: Sorry all. This had the ring of truth when I was typing it up, but the numbers don't actually work that way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2570.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"rk9e0z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Taxes on capital gains should account for inflation. In my country (and I'm pretty sure its the same way in most other countries), capital gains taxes are calculated based off of nominal returns, as opposed to real returns.  Returns that aren't greater than inflation shouldn't be considered profits, as they do not represent any increase in buying power.  As such, when calculating return we should subtract the inflation rate.    &#x200B;  I foresee a few objections to my proposal, and here are my responses:    1.  My proposal would lower taxes:  Whether the income or capital gains tax rate should be changed is a different CMV post.  Regardless of the tax rate, returns should be measured accurately. 2. This would only benefit those who own stock\/bonds:  Lower income people tend to have a disproportionate amount of their savings in cash, which does not generate a return.  Under my proposed system, they would be considered to have significant \"capital losses\" which would provide a tax benefit.  And regardless of who it would benefit, my proposed system is fair and accurate.","c_root_id_A":"hp8dpax","c_root_id_B":"hp8yx05","created_at_utc_A":1639958456,"created_at_utc_B":1639968700,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Right now I\u2019d say they do. Gains are taxed at a lower rate with no deductions.","human_ref_B":"Gains themselves are affected by inflation - this would essentially be double-counting.  The gains themselves tell us what happened to the investment, trying to think that these gains are somehow \"divorced\" from inflation is to drastically overthink the situation.  For example, your investment in a company that sell widgets charges more for widgets in a year with high inflation compared to the prior rate so their growth rate is higher, their revenue is higher and their margins in real dollars are higher.  AKA - your investment goes up more in real dollars and therefore your taxes do as well.  If you changed the percentage of taxation you'd be doubling up.  Capital losses come in the for of increased costs for expenses that flow to deductions.  TLDR: inflation itself handles this.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10244.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"rk9e0z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Taxes on capital gains should account for inflation. In my country (and I'm pretty sure its the same way in most other countries), capital gains taxes are calculated based off of nominal returns, as opposed to real returns.  Returns that aren't greater than inflation shouldn't be considered profits, as they do not represent any increase in buying power.  As such, when calculating return we should subtract the inflation rate.    &#x200B;  I foresee a few objections to my proposal, and here are my responses:    1.  My proposal would lower taxes:  Whether the income or capital gains tax rate should be changed is a different CMV post.  Regardless of the tax rate, returns should be measured accurately. 2. This would only benefit those who own stock\/bonds:  Lower income people tend to have a disproportionate amount of their savings in cash, which does not generate a return.  Under my proposed system, they would be considered to have significant \"capital losses\" which would provide a tax benefit.  And regardless of who it would benefit, my proposed system is fair and accurate.","c_root_id_A":"hp8tn56","c_root_id_B":"hp8dpax","created_at_utc_A":1639966130,"created_at_utc_B":1639958456,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In one way of looking at this, they already do account for inflation in that you are paying them with post-inflation dollars. If you were going to pay your taxes based on pre-inflation dollar values, you should also pay them with pre-inflation dollars, but since you would be paying at the end you'd need to adjust your payment for inflation as well.  This would raise the rate in some cases and lower it in others, but would generally be even more overcomplicated than the current system.  Edit: Sorry all. This had the ring of truth when I was typing it up, but the numbers don't actually work that way.","human_ref_B":"Right now I\u2019d say they do. Gains are taxed at a lower rate with no deductions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7674.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"1jocwx","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"I think the 'culture' around alcohol is extremely toxic and needs to be fixed. CMV To start of, I realize how difficult of an issue this is. Banning alcohol flat-out would only cause problems and probably more than I know of, but my opinion is that the 'culture' we have built around alcohol in western society (I'm Western European, if anyone's interested) is very toxic to our every day life and especially children growing up.   My background preceding this view is, I think, important. So I'll start of with that. I grew up in a small village where alcohol and straight alcoholism is not treated as much of a big deal. In fact, people fail to recognize alcholism and problem-drinkers so extremely much that my own mother has grown up into extreme alcoholism without ever getting the help she has been needing for over at least 40 years. It has affected both herself and those close to her, including me. She has recently confessed to me that her problem had been going on for this long and that the people around her in her youth (my guess would be early 20's) thought her attitude towards alcohol was cool.   This is not rare. Especially villages have the risk of getting into extreme alcoholism and though I know I live in one of the worst places when it come to this issue (I have actually looked at statistics), I think it does highlight in a hyperbolic way how toxic the culture we live in can be to many people. Having grown up with an alcoholic has made me very sensitive to the signs of alcoholism and I recognize it a lot easier than most. My offers of help would be dismissed and ridiculed.  People who don't drink are called 'straight-edge', but not in a good way. I have made my own conscious decision to not drink, because doing so would be triggering to me. I couldn't hang around people who drink or casually go to a party without it being forced on me. I have had people get legitimately angry at me for not drinking. I 'spoil the fun', I'm prude and I'm boring. I am apparently not allowed to have fun without getting drunk.  I think every one of you at least knows someone who has a problem with alcohol and maybe even had it themselves. In how many of those cases did these people have to get into an accident, have to go through something horrible before they would get help?  In my opinion, the way we glorify alcohol in the media contributes to how hard it is for these people to get help. Commercials for alcohol are full of objectification of women and machismo. They target people who naively buy into the image of the charming man who is succesful with women. Drinking away problems is almost encouraged in some cases. I am not completely against any positive portrayal of alcohol, but I think there's a great lack of nuance.  Having said all that, I am still open to opposing views and hope to see if anyone has any information I'm missing that might get me to change my view.","c_root_id_A":"cbgsya7","c_root_id_B":"cbgp3g7","created_at_utc_A":1375639055,"created_at_utc_B":1375624762,"score_A":33,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"Having worked in the substance abuse prevention field with remote villages in the past, I'd say that the bigger problem is village life, not alcohol glorification. I think you're focusing your efforts in the wrong place. Not so long ago, villages needed everyone to contribute in order for the village to survive. Now, that's not the case and there's nothing for most people to do. I've been to places where anything in an aerosol can had to be kept behind the counter at the store and not sold to minors because kids were so desperate for an escape that they'd huff whatever they could get their hands on. Alcohol is just another escape, just like any other drug.   You're never going to be able to change how alcohol is portrayed in popular culture, so you need to counteract it with messages that it isn't necessary or good for you. More importantly, though, you need to find something for people to do so they don't feel the need to turn to substance use in the first place.","human_ref_B":"There is a reason alcohol is glorified, it is incredibly fun. Alcohol is the only legal drug that gives people any sort of altered state. Think about this for a second; the easiest way people can feel anything but a sober state of consciousness without breaking the law, is consuming alcohol... which is a ridiculous expectation to put on an animal that has been altering its state of consciousness for almost the entirety of our existence through a variety of different drugs, all of which are now illegal to consume. It is inherent for some people.  Alcohol is the last of the legal drug; this fact alone is enough to encourage substance abuse.  Also, the major problem with your argument is it revolves entirely around problem drinkers, which is an incredibly shallow way to form a balanced opinion. For anything there is a group of people that will not mix well with whatever this is. This includes, but is not limited to: alcohol, cheeseburgers, children, guns, cars and credit cards - for every one of those magnificent things there is a fairly sizable chunk of people who just for some reason or another cannot deal with it; so we have alcoholics, obesity, domestic abusers, murderers, felons and economy crashers. Shit.  But there are also a huge majority who *can* be responsible with whatever it is, and those people get great pleasure out of it in return. So we allow the good with the bad, after all there is unquestionably more good in those cases. This is great news, because we want to have as many choices as we can so we can feel like a 'free' human. We like choices, it makes us feel like we are in charge of our own lives.  Drinking is one of these choices, and for a lot of us (myself included) we can binge drink without it affecting our lives in a negative way. For some, it is incredibly fun and all sorts of different people experience different results with it. It gives the little man in your head a break from the controls for a while, and in steps his ugly cousin Boris who has only stumps where his fingers should be and he just starts hammering buttons; he has more confidence, wants to party, wants to dance to shit music, more outgoing, wants to go pick up, wants to crank the dial, wants to go on stage, wants to be the centre of attention, and just be in the company of friends while on the same wild fucked up journey.  So yes, when people say to you 'it spoils the fun' that you don't drink, they actually feel that way - I can sometimes feel that way. Don't get me wrong, I can have a good time with sober people while sober, and I have an excellent time with drunk people while drunk. If I am sober, drunk people can annoy me, and if I am drunk sober people annoy me. The two states just do not mix that well. So when you come along to whatever the event is and everyone is drinking but you, it takes the tone of the event down, like a herd that moves only as fast as the slowest buffalo. This peer pressure isn't just to make you drink the poisonous fire water, this is to try and get you on the same journey as everyone else so you can experience the same altered state together. Sober people and drunk people simply cannot experience the same thing.  Sober people are dropping anchors when everyone else wants to set sail.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14293.0,"score_ratio":1.064516129}
+{"post_id":"1jocwx","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"I think the 'culture' around alcohol is extremely toxic and needs to be fixed. CMV To start of, I realize how difficult of an issue this is. Banning alcohol flat-out would only cause problems and probably more than I know of, but my opinion is that the 'culture' we have built around alcohol in western society (I'm Western European, if anyone's interested) is very toxic to our every day life and especially children growing up.   My background preceding this view is, I think, important. So I'll start of with that. I grew up in a small village where alcohol and straight alcoholism is not treated as much of a big deal. In fact, people fail to recognize alcholism and problem-drinkers so extremely much that my own mother has grown up into extreme alcoholism without ever getting the help she has been needing for over at least 40 years. It has affected both herself and those close to her, including me. She has recently confessed to me that her problem had been going on for this long and that the people around her in her youth (my guess would be early 20's) thought her attitude towards alcohol was cool.   This is not rare. Especially villages have the risk of getting into extreme alcoholism and though I know I live in one of the worst places when it come to this issue (I have actually looked at statistics), I think it does highlight in a hyperbolic way how toxic the culture we live in can be to many people. Having grown up with an alcoholic has made me very sensitive to the signs of alcoholism and I recognize it a lot easier than most. My offers of help would be dismissed and ridiculed.  People who don't drink are called 'straight-edge', but not in a good way. I have made my own conscious decision to not drink, because doing so would be triggering to me. I couldn't hang around people who drink or casually go to a party without it being forced on me. I have had people get legitimately angry at me for not drinking. I 'spoil the fun', I'm prude and I'm boring. I am apparently not allowed to have fun without getting drunk.  I think every one of you at least knows someone who has a problem with alcohol and maybe even had it themselves. In how many of those cases did these people have to get into an accident, have to go through something horrible before they would get help?  In my opinion, the way we glorify alcohol in the media contributes to how hard it is for these people to get help. Commercials for alcohol are full of objectification of women and machismo. They target people who naively buy into the image of the charming man who is succesful with women. Drinking away problems is almost encouraged in some cases. I am not completely against any positive portrayal of alcohol, but I think there's a great lack of nuance.  Having said all that, I am still open to opposing views and hope to see if anyone has any information I'm missing that might get me to change my view.","c_root_id_A":"cbgsya7","c_root_id_B":"cbgpkp9","created_at_utc_A":1375639055,"created_at_utc_B":1375627070,"score_A":33,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"Having worked in the substance abuse prevention field with remote villages in the past, I'd say that the bigger problem is village life, not alcohol glorification. I think you're focusing your efforts in the wrong place. Not so long ago, villages needed everyone to contribute in order for the village to survive. Now, that's not the case and there's nothing for most people to do. I've been to places where anything in an aerosol can had to be kept behind the counter at the store and not sold to minors because kids were so desperate for an escape that they'd huff whatever they could get their hands on. Alcohol is just another escape, just like any other drug.   You're never going to be able to change how alcohol is portrayed in popular culture, so you need to counteract it with messages that it isn't necessary or good for you. More importantly, though, you need to find something for people to do so they don't feel the need to turn to substance use in the first place.","human_ref_B":"We do not glorify alcohol as much as social \"events\" around it.I am Eastern European and in my country men used to use drinking as rest from family duties and form of bonding.Drinking is grown up way to make friends and relax especially if alcohol is cheap.Youth today feel pressure to be as extroverted as possible so drinking helps them be more social.Drinking alone\/to solve depression is  frowned upon.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11985.0,"score_ratio":1.03125}
+{"post_id":"1jocwx","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"I think the 'culture' around alcohol is extremely toxic and needs to be fixed. CMV To start of, I realize how difficult of an issue this is. Banning alcohol flat-out would only cause problems and probably more than I know of, but my opinion is that the 'culture' we have built around alcohol in western society (I'm Western European, if anyone's interested) is very toxic to our every day life and especially children growing up.   My background preceding this view is, I think, important. So I'll start of with that. I grew up in a small village where alcohol and straight alcoholism is not treated as much of a big deal. In fact, people fail to recognize alcholism and problem-drinkers so extremely much that my own mother has grown up into extreme alcoholism without ever getting the help she has been needing for over at least 40 years. It has affected both herself and those close to her, including me. She has recently confessed to me that her problem had been going on for this long and that the people around her in her youth (my guess would be early 20's) thought her attitude towards alcohol was cool.   This is not rare. Especially villages have the risk of getting into extreme alcoholism and though I know I live in one of the worst places when it come to this issue (I have actually looked at statistics), I think it does highlight in a hyperbolic way how toxic the culture we live in can be to many people. Having grown up with an alcoholic has made me very sensitive to the signs of alcoholism and I recognize it a lot easier than most. My offers of help would be dismissed and ridiculed.  People who don't drink are called 'straight-edge', but not in a good way. I have made my own conscious decision to not drink, because doing so would be triggering to me. I couldn't hang around people who drink or casually go to a party without it being forced on me. I have had people get legitimately angry at me for not drinking. I 'spoil the fun', I'm prude and I'm boring. I am apparently not allowed to have fun without getting drunk.  I think every one of you at least knows someone who has a problem with alcohol and maybe even had it themselves. In how many of those cases did these people have to get into an accident, have to go through something horrible before they would get help?  In my opinion, the way we glorify alcohol in the media contributes to how hard it is for these people to get help. Commercials for alcohol are full of objectification of women and machismo. They target people who naively buy into the image of the charming man who is succesful with women. Drinking away problems is almost encouraged in some cases. I am not completely against any positive portrayal of alcohol, but I think there's a great lack of nuance.  Having said all that, I am still open to opposing views and hope to see if anyone has any information I'm missing that might get me to change my view.","c_root_id_A":"cbgqmee","c_root_id_B":"cbgsya7","created_at_utc_A":1375631344,"created_at_utc_B":1375639055,"score_A":9,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"I'm not trying to be mean, but it sounds like you're hanging out immature assholes. I come from a big alcohol\/party background on both sides of the family and in my social life. Drinking is par for the course.   We have a few ex-drinkers\/non-drinkers. *No one* ever gives this shit about it. I don't think anyone even cares or notices. Nobody has to drink to have fun. Everyone has their personal choice. I'd never give anyone shit for being straght-edge. Hell, my liver is jealous of them.   I know drinking culture in the western world is huge. But anyone who uses that to bully others simply because they don't want to drink is a huger douche.","human_ref_B":"Having worked in the substance abuse prevention field with remote villages in the past, I'd say that the bigger problem is village life, not alcohol glorification. I think you're focusing your efforts in the wrong place. Not so long ago, villages needed everyone to contribute in order for the village to survive. Now, that's not the case and there's nothing for most people to do. I've been to places where anything in an aerosol can had to be kept behind the counter at the store and not sold to minors because kids were so desperate for an escape that they'd huff whatever they could get their hands on. Alcohol is just another escape, just like any other drug.   You're never going to be able to change how alcohol is portrayed in popular culture, so you need to counteract it with messages that it isn't necessary or good for you. More importantly, though, you need to find something for people to do so they don't feel the need to turn to substance use in the first place.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7711.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"1jocwx","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"I think the 'culture' around alcohol is extremely toxic and needs to be fixed. CMV To start of, I realize how difficult of an issue this is. Banning alcohol flat-out would only cause problems and probably more than I know of, but my opinion is that the 'culture' we have built around alcohol in western society (I'm Western European, if anyone's interested) is very toxic to our every day life and especially children growing up.   My background preceding this view is, I think, important. So I'll start of with that. I grew up in a small village where alcohol and straight alcoholism is not treated as much of a big deal. In fact, people fail to recognize alcholism and problem-drinkers so extremely much that my own mother has grown up into extreme alcoholism without ever getting the help she has been needing for over at least 40 years. It has affected both herself and those close to her, including me. She has recently confessed to me that her problem had been going on for this long and that the people around her in her youth (my guess would be early 20's) thought her attitude towards alcohol was cool.   This is not rare. Especially villages have the risk of getting into extreme alcoholism and though I know I live in one of the worst places when it come to this issue (I have actually looked at statistics), I think it does highlight in a hyperbolic way how toxic the culture we live in can be to many people. Having grown up with an alcoholic has made me very sensitive to the signs of alcoholism and I recognize it a lot easier than most. My offers of help would be dismissed and ridiculed.  People who don't drink are called 'straight-edge', but not in a good way. I have made my own conscious decision to not drink, because doing so would be triggering to me. I couldn't hang around people who drink or casually go to a party without it being forced on me. I have had people get legitimately angry at me for not drinking. I 'spoil the fun', I'm prude and I'm boring. I am apparently not allowed to have fun without getting drunk.  I think every one of you at least knows someone who has a problem with alcohol and maybe even had it themselves. In how many of those cases did these people have to get into an accident, have to go through something horrible before they would get help?  In my opinion, the way we glorify alcohol in the media contributes to how hard it is for these people to get help. Commercials for alcohol are full of objectification of women and machismo. They target people who naively buy into the image of the charming man who is succesful with women. Drinking away problems is almost encouraged in some cases. I am not completely against any positive portrayal of alcohol, but I think there's a great lack of nuance.  Having said all that, I am still open to opposing views and hope to see if anyone has any information I'm missing that might get me to change my view.","c_root_id_A":"cbgp3g7","c_root_id_B":"cbgpkp9","created_at_utc_A":1375624762,"created_at_utc_B":1375627070,"score_A":31,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"There is a reason alcohol is glorified, it is incredibly fun. Alcohol is the only legal drug that gives people any sort of altered state. Think about this for a second; the easiest way people can feel anything but a sober state of consciousness without breaking the law, is consuming alcohol... which is a ridiculous expectation to put on an animal that has been altering its state of consciousness for almost the entirety of our existence through a variety of different drugs, all of which are now illegal to consume. It is inherent for some people.  Alcohol is the last of the legal drug; this fact alone is enough to encourage substance abuse.  Also, the major problem with your argument is it revolves entirely around problem drinkers, which is an incredibly shallow way to form a balanced opinion. For anything there is a group of people that will not mix well with whatever this is. This includes, but is not limited to: alcohol, cheeseburgers, children, guns, cars and credit cards - for every one of those magnificent things there is a fairly sizable chunk of people who just for some reason or another cannot deal with it; so we have alcoholics, obesity, domestic abusers, murderers, felons and economy crashers. Shit.  But there are also a huge majority who *can* be responsible with whatever it is, and those people get great pleasure out of it in return. So we allow the good with the bad, after all there is unquestionably more good in those cases. This is great news, because we want to have as many choices as we can so we can feel like a 'free' human. We like choices, it makes us feel like we are in charge of our own lives.  Drinking is one of these choices, and for a lot of us (myself included) we can binge drink without it affecting our lives in a negative way. For some, it is incredibly fun and all sorts of different people experience different results with it. It gives the little man in your head a break from the controls for a while, and in steps his ugly cousin Boris who has only stumps where his fingers should be and he just starts hammering buttons; he has more confidence, wants to party, wants to dance to shit music, more outgoing, wants to go pick up, wants to crank the dial, wants to go on stage, wants to be the centre of attention, and just be in the company of friends while on the same wild fucked up journey.  So yes, when people say to you 'it spoils the fun' that you don't drink, they actually feel that way - I can sometimes feel that way. Don't get me wrong, I can have a good time with sober people while sober, and I have an excellent time with drunk people while drunk. If I am sober, drunk people can annoy me, and if I am drunk sober people annoy me. The two states just do not mix that well. So when you come along to whatever the event is and everyone is drinking but you, it takes the tone of the event down, like a herd that moves only as fast as the slowest buffalo. This peer pressure isn't just to make you drink the poisonous fire water, this is to try and get you on the same journey as everyone else so you can experience the same altered state together. Sober people and drunk people simply cannot experience the same thing.  Sober people are dropping anchors when everyone else wants to set sail.","human_ref_B":"We do not glorify alcohol as much as social \"events\" around it.I am Eastern European and in my country men used to use drinking as rest from family duties and form of bonding.Drinking is grown up way to make friends and relax especially if alcohol is cheap.Youth today feel pressure to be as extroverted as possible so drinking helps them be more social.Drinking alone\/to solve depression is  frowned upon.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2308.0,"score_ratio":1.0322580645}
+{"post_id":"1jocwx","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"I think the 'culture' around alcohol is extremely toxic and needs to be fixed. CMV To start of, I realize how difficult of an issue this is. Banning alcohol flat-out would only cause problems and probably more than I know of, but my opinion is that the 'culture' we have built around alcohol in western society (I'm Western European, if anyone's interested) is very toxic to our every day life and especially children growing up.   My background preceding this view is, I think, important. So I'll start of with that. I grew up in a small village where alcohol and straight alcoholism is not treated as much of a big deal. In fact, people fail to recognize alcholism and problem-drinkers so extremely much that my own mother has grown up into extreme alcoholism without ever getting the help she has been needing for over at least 40 years. It has affected both herself and those close to her, including me. She has recently confessed to me that her problem had been going on for this long and that the people around her in her youth (my guess would be early 20's) thought her attitude towards alcohol was cool.   This is not rare. Especially villages have the risk of getting into extreme alcoholism and though I know I live in one of the worst places when it come to this issue (I have actually looked at statistics), I think it does highlight in a hyperbolic way how toxic the culture we live in can be to many people. Having grown up with an alcoholic has made me very sensitive to the signs of alcoholism and I recognize it a lot easier than most. My offers of help would be dismissed and ridiculed.  People who don't drink are called 'straight-edge', but not in a good way. I have made my own conscious decision to not drink, because doing so would be triggering to me. I couldn't hang around people who drink or casually go to a party without it being forced on me. I have had people get legitimately angry at me for not drinking. I 'spoil the fun', I'm prude and I'm boring. I am apparently not allowed to have fun without getting drunk.  I think every one of you at least knows someone who has a problem with alcohol and maybe even had it themselves. In how many of those cases did these people have to get into an accident, have to go through something horrible before they would get help?  In my opinion, the way we glorify alcohol in the media contributes to how hard it is for these people to get help. Commercials for alcohol are full of objectification of women and machismo. They target people who naively buy into the image of the charming man who is succesful with women. Drinking away problems is almost encouraged in some cases. I am not completely against any positive portrayal of alcohol, but I think there's a great lack of nuance.  Having said all that, I am still open to opposing views and hope to see if anyone has any information I'm missing that might get me to change my view.","c_root_id_A":"cbgqmee","c_root_id_B":"cbgwgdf","created_at_utc_A":1375631344,"created_at_utc_B":1375650150,"score_A":9,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I'm not trying to be mean, but it sounds like you're hanging out immature assholes. I come from a big alcohol\/party background on both sides of the family and in my social life. Drinking is par for the course.   We have a few ex-drinkers\/non-drinkers. *No one* ever gives this shit about it. I don't think anyone even cares or notices. Nobody has to drink to have fun. Everyone has their personal choice. I'd never give anyone shit for being straght-edge. Hell, my liver is jealous of them.   I know drinking culture in the western world is huge. But anyone who uses that to bully others simply because they don't want to drink is a huger douche.","human_ref_B":">People who don't drink are called 'straight-edge', but not in a good way. I have made my own conscious decision to not drink, because doing so would be triggering to me. I couldn't hang around people who drink or casually go to a party without it being forced on me. I have had people get legitimately angry at me for not drinking. I 'spoil the fun', I'm prude and I'm boring. I am apparently not allowed to have fun without getting drunk.  I would argue that this is not necessarily an aspect of drinking culture, but the fault of individuals.  For example, I've been on both sides of this issue, and though I've been ostracized for my decision not to imbibe I've never had someone get angry at me for the decision.  Additionally I think it's worth considering whether or not they're really concerned with how 'straight-edge' you are in comparison to how you're acting at the event.  I nor most of my drinking friends don't really care how many drinks deep you are so long as you're not in danger, we care about your attitude.  I had no difficulty going to parties sober when I spazzed out on the dance floor, everyone treated me like another drunk, not because I had drank anything, but because despite being sober I was being reckless and impulsive, and that is what drunk college-aged kids want to see.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18806.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"78xl1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Abstinence-only sexual education programs should not be taught in public schools. This is primarily focused on public schools in the U.S. as I don't have any experience out of it. I think abstinence is a great thing, but it should be taught along side birth control and STI protection. The issue with abstinence-only programs is that they usually don't go over other possibilities or define terms, such as that just because you don't have vaginal sex (ex. anal) doesn't mean you can't get a sexually transmitted disease. I would like to hear from people who have experienced abstinence-only programs or anyone who has an argument for why they're good. This can include religious reasons, even though I might engage with you more on that so I can get your understanding.  I'm writing a paper for an English class in my university and it's supposed to be over a topic that is heavily debated. While it is extremely biased just due to the credibility of people who usually hold my view, I do need to cite the other side.","c_root_id_A":"doxy00h","c_root_id_B":"doxgy58","created_at_utc_A":1509062553,"created_at_utc_B":1509043722,"score_A":22,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"I think there's really two issues here:   1. whether or not to teach abstinence as \"good\"  2. The quality and content of the actual sexual curriculum  They aren't mutually exclusive. I, for example, wasn't taught abstinence-only, but my education really just covered puberty and the actual biology of the genitals. You could definitely have an abstinence-only program that still informs to the level you're describing. Would that still be an issue with you?","human_ref_B":"Not my personal belief but.... let's say that for some reason, I believe that sex outside of marriage and not for pro-creation is lewd or sinful. It would be easy to see how teaching about protection and bc would be a direct undermining of these values that I hold. Everyone can agree that abstinence is a great way to not have a baby or get STI's. However there is a disagreement beyond anything other than that.   By teaching abstinence only education you are giving everyone a level of education that is accepted by everyone. \"But kids will still have sex!\" you proclaim. Well that's not my problem, it's the parent's job to explain sex to their children. Just because there are bad parents out there that don't talk to their kids, does not mean my child should have to be exposed to lifestyle choices that are against my views. They're my child until they are 18 at which point they can make their own views but until then, they live under my roof.   I'm not depriving anyone of anything, there are certain life skills that parents are expected to teach and this should be one of them, because of closely held beliefs around sex are.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18831.0,"score_ratio":1.1578947368}
+{"post_id":"78xl1g","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Abstinence-only sexual education programs should not be taught in public schools. This is primarily focused on public schools in the U.S. as I don't have any experience out of it. I think abstinence is a great thing, but it should be taught along side birth control and STI protection. The issue with abstinence-only programs is that they usually don't go over other possibilities or define terms, such as that just because you don't have vaginal sex (ex. anal) doesn't mean you can't get a sexually transmitted disease. I would like to hear from people who have experienced abstinence-only programs or anyone who has an argument for why they're good. This can include religious reasons, even though I might engage with you more on that so I can get your understanding.  I'm writing a paper for an English class in my university and it's supposed to be over a topic that is heavily debated. While it is extremely biased just due to the credibility of people who usually hold my view, I do need to cite the other side.","c_root_id_A":"doy379r","c_root_id_B":"doyqp02","created_at_utc_A":1509068711,"created_at_utc_B":1509111496,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Sex should have consequences. It is a weighty moral, emotional, and spiritual thing. Teenagers are bad judges of... just about everything, so the only thing keeping them away from sex is fear: fear of pregnancy, STIs, emotional abandonment, sexual abuse, and so on.   If we teach teenagers how to mitigate the consequences of sex through birth control, the only barrier keeping them from this adult, consequential activity is gone. They'll have sex. They'll regret it. And the protective measures will fail because every type of contraception has a margin of error.   Once they're older, they'll see the more sophisticated reasons for abstaining from sex until marriage. When they're young, they have to be constantly warned of consequences and given no mitigating information. It's like... would you teach a toddler that they can be resuscitated after falling into a pool and sinking? No. You teach them to stay out of the water.   (Before anyone blows up my inbox, this is not my personal view, but it certainly is a perspective that animates the abstinence-only crowd.)","human_ref_B":"Bad abstinence-only sex education don't work.  However, at least one good abstinence-only sex education course was successful.  The reasons I've usually heard cited (haven't read the study myself) is that it was based on a more extensive 8-hour long course.  Interesting, too, that according to google it has been cited over 200 times, so it's evidently well-known among academics but virtually unknown to normal people.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":42785.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"v25qi9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: The theory that eliminating tipping would cause the restaurant industry to collapse is a conspiracy perpetuated by waitstaff and the restaurant industry Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It\u2019s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff.  The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat. Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the  business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money. Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat. So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it?   As well back of house usually isn\u2019t getting tipped and some of them make less than the waitstaff. Where\u2019s the outrage?  People keep pushing the idea that somehow eliminating tips is going to lead to the collapse of the restaurant industry or food prices are going to skyrocket. If this was the case why does it seem every country that doesn\u2019t have a tipping system is doing just fine?  The tipping system in America is propped up solely by the false narrative that it is necessary. It\u2019s a conspiracy perpetuated by the restaurant industry and waitstaff and is just as credible something like the flat earth theory.   >What would change my view  Some kind of credible information that the entire restaurant Industry would collapse and not individual business that just can\u2019t support themselves    OR  That tipping is somehow a necessity","c_root_id_A":"iaqldbe","c_root_id_B":"iaqjcdv","created_at_utc_A":1654049574,"created_at_utc_B":1654048586,"score_A":87,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"you aren't legally obligated to tip and you'll face no legal repercussions for not tipping.  In that sense, it is optional.  Not tipping in areas for which low income earners depend on tips is morally reprehensible and people will continue to morally condemn and judge you for it.  Not viewing you as an immoral person is optional.  A service industry that didn't depend on tips is very conceivable.  In most if not all of Europe, tips are much less expected.  It is reasonable to want to switch from the US system to the European system.  It is not reasonable to make some of the lowest wage earners pay for that transition.  If you don't like the culture of tipping, you can campaign for laws that don't exempt service workers from minimum wage, and you can boycott restaurants where tips are expected.  But, if you, in order to try to change the country to the way you want it to be, decide the way to do that is for you to make no sacrifices at all, and instead inflict that burden on some of the most economically vulnerable, you taint your own cause.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019re incorrect, the tipping system is propped up by businesses that want to pay their workers sub minimum wage. It\u2019s a loophole where they can pay them less and put the responsibility of paying their workers a \u201cfair wage\u201d more directly onto customers  Wait staffs don\u2019t want less guaranteed wages in the hopes their tips might make up for it","labels":1,"seconds_difference":988.0,"score_ratio":12.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"v25qi9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: The theory that eliminating tipping would cause the restaurant industry to collapse is a conspiracy perpetuated by waitstaff and the restaurant industry Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It\u2019s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff.  The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat. Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the  business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money. Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat. So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it?   As well back of house usually isn\u2019t getting tipped and some of them make less than the waitstaff. Where\u2019s the outrage?  People keep pushing the idea that somehow eliminating tips is going to lead to the collapse of the restaurant industry or food prices are going to skyrocket. If this was the case why does it seem every country that doesn\u2019t have a tipping system is doing just fine?  The tipping system in America is propped up solely by the false narrative that it is necessary. It\u2019s a conspiracy perpetuated by the restaurant industry and waitstaff and is just as credible something like the flat earth theory.   >What would change my view  Some kind of credible information that the entire restaurant Industry would collapse and not individual business that just can\u2019t support themselves    OR  That tipping is somehow a necessity","c_root_id_A":"iaql4x6","c_root_id_B":"iaqldbe","created_at_utc_A":1654049459,"created_at_utc_B":1654049574,"score_A":3,"score_B":87,"human_ref_A":">Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It\u2019s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff.  Nobody said otherwise. People are free to judge you for not doing optional things though. Not shitting my pants in an elevator is also optional.  >The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat.   I'm always amused at the people who complain about tipping. Like you guys have the ability to not tip. And yet you are calling for a world in which you are basically forced to tip. You are paying for their paycheck either way, that's how jobs work.  >Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages   Yes customer money goes into the pockets of the workers. That's how society works, regardless of whether or not your profession is a tipped one.  >and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money.   The people at the top want tables turning over just as much as your waiter does. They make more money the more customers there are as well.  >Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat.   The way you keep saying foot the bill really confuses me. I genuinely do not see a difference if amazon workers are making at least minimum. If we can cut down the price of food because some people are happy to give more then others then that's a good thing.   >So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it?   You are calling for a world in which the price of your food is higher because the restaurant owner has to pay wait staff. Why not just... you know, voluntarily give the waitstaff that 10% rise in food prices you are calling for.","human_ref_B":"you aren't legally obligated to tip and you'll face no legal repercussions for not tipping.  In that sense, it is optional.  Not tipping in areas for which low income earners depend on tips is morally reprehensible and people will continue to morally condemn and judge you for it.  Not viewing you as an immoral person is optional.  A service industry that didn't depend on tips is very conceivable.  In most if not all of Europe, tips are much less expected.  It is reasonable to want to switch from the US system to the European system.  It is not reasonable to make some of the lowest wage earners pay for that transition.  If you don't like the culture of tipping, you can campaign for laws that don't exempt service workers from minimum wage, and you can boycott restaurants where tips are expected.  But, if you, in order to try to change the country to the way you want it to be, decide the way to do that is for you to make no sacrifices at all, and instead inflict that burden on some of the most economically vulnerable, you taint your own cause.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":115.0,"score_ratio":29.0}
+{"post_id":"v25qi9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: The theory that eliminating tipping would cause the restaurant industry to collapse is a conspiracy perpetuated by waitstaff and the restaurant industry Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It\u2019s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff.  The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat. Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the  business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money. Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat. So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it?   As well back of house usually isn\u2019t getting tipped and some of them make less than the waitstaff. Where\u2019s the outrage?  People keep pushing the idea that somehow eliminating tips is going to lead to the collapse of the restaurant industry or food prices are going to skyrocket. If this was the case why does it seem every country that doesn\u2019t have a tipping system is doing just fine?  The tipping system in America is propped up solely by the false narrative that it is necessary. It\u2019s a conspiracy perpetuated by the restaurant industry and waitstaff and is just as credible something like the flat earth theory.   >What would change my view  Some kind of credible information that the entire restaurant Industry would collapse and not individual business that just can\u2019t support themselves    OR  That tipping is somehow a necessity","c_root_id_A":"iaqotxv","c_root_id_B":"iaqjcdv","created_at_utc_A":1654051280,"created_at_utc_B":1654048586,"score_A":23,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Who is saying the entire industry would collapse?  That sounds like a strawman of epic proportions.   What people say is that service would suffer, and servers would make less than they deserve.   That's a moral judgement. And an opinion that most people prefer not to served by surly minimum wage robots with no health insurance... What could possibly go wrong with that?  And sadly, it's an *accurate* judgement. Americans literally cannot trust businesses to pay a *fair living wage* to people like servers. We have a *massive* history of this. Europe is culturally different... Not to mention different laws and much more favorable minimum wages... and free health insurance.   ...and yet...   Go eat in a mid-to-low end European restaurant and time how long it takes you to get your water glass filled, order a dessert, or pay your bill.   European service is *slow as fuck* except at the very high end.   So they aren't wrong about that... Americans value fast service, and fast service is fundamentally encouraged directly by the tipping scheme... because waiters make more primarily by getting more tables in a night.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019re incorrect, the tipping system is propped up by businesses that want to pay their workers sub minimum wage. It\u2019s a loophole where they can pay them less and put the responsibility of paying their workers a \u201cfair wage\u201d more directly onto customers  Wait staffs don\u2019t want less guaranteed wages in the hopes their tips might make up for it","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2694.0,"score_ratio":3.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"v25qi9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: The theory that eliminating tipping would cause the restaurant industry to collapse is a conspiracy perpetuated by waitstaff and the restaurant industry Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It\u2019s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff.  The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat. Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the  business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money. Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat. So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it?   As well back of house usually isn\u2019t getting tipped and some of them make less than the waitstaff. Where\u2019s the outrage?  People keep pushing the idea that somehow eliminating tips is going to lead to the collapse of the restaurant industry or food prices are going to skyrocket. If this was the case why does it seem every country that doesn\u2019t have a tipping system is doing just fine?  The tipping system in America is propped up solely by the false narrative that it is necessary. It\u2019s a conspiracy perpetuated by the restaurant industry and waitstaff and is just as credible something like the flat earth theory.   >What would change my view  Some kind of credible information that the entire restaurant Industry would collapse and not individual business that just can\u2019t support themselves    OR  That tipping is somehow a necessity","c_root_id_A":"iaqotxv","c_root_id_B":"iaqof4f","created_at_utc_A":1654051280,"created_at_utc_B":1654051075,"score_A":23,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Who is saying the entire industry would collapse?  That sounds like a strawman of epic proportions.   What people say is that service would suffer, and servers would make less than they deserve.   That's a moral judgement. And an opinion that most people prefer not to served by surly minimum wage robots with no health insurance... What could possibly go wrong with that?  And sadly, it's an *accurate* judgement. Americans literally cannot trust businesses to pay a *fair living wage* to people like servers. We have a *massive* history of this. Europe is culturally different... Not to mention different laws and much more favorable minimum wages... and free health insurance.   ...and yet...   Go eat in a mid-to-low end European restaurant and time how long it takes you to get your water glass filled, order a dessert, or pay your bill.   European service is *slow as fuck* except at the very high end.   So they aren't wrong about that... Americans value fast service, and fast service is fundamentally encouraged directly by the tipping scheme... because waiters make more primarily by getting more tables in a night.","human_ref_B":">They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat.  Ummm... Amazon's grocery delivery services work exactly like this... and they're very popular, so... you're wrong about that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":205.0,"score_ratio":7.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"v25qi9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: The theory that eliminating tipping would cause the restaurant industry to collapse is a conspiracy perpetuated by waitstaff and the restaurant industry Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It\u2019s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff.  The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat. Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the  business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money. Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat. So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it?   As well back of house usually isn\u2019t getting tipped and some of them make less than the waitstaff. Where\u2019s the outrage?  People keep pushing the idea that somehow eliminating tips is going to lead to the collapse of the restaurant industry or food prices are going to skyrocket. If this was the case why does it seem every country that doesn\u2019t have a tipping system is doing just fine?  The tipping system in America is propped up solely by the false narrative that it is necessary. It\u2019s a conspiracy perpetuated by the restaurant industry and waitstaff and is just as credible something like the flat earth theory.   >What would change my view  Some kind of credible information that the entire restaurant Industry would collapse and not individual business that just can\u2019t support themselves    OR  That tipping is somehow a necessity","c_root_id_A":"iaql4x6","c_root_id_B":"iaqotxv","created_at_utc_A":1654049459,"created_at_utc_B":1654051280,"score_A":3,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":">Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It\u2019s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff.  Nobody said otherwise. People are free to judge you for not doing optional things though. Not shitting my pants in an elevator is also optional.  >The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat.   I'm always amused at the people who complain about tipping. Like you guys have the ability to not tip. And yet you are calling for a world in which you are basically forced to tip. You are paying for their paycheck either way, that's how jobs work.  >Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages   Yes customer money goes into the pockets of the workers. That's how society works, regardless of whether or not your profession is a tipped one.  >and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money.   The people at the top want tables turning over just as much as your waiter does. They make more money the more customers there are as well.  >Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat.   The way you keep saying foot the bill really confuses me. I genuinely do not see a difference if amazon workers are making at least minimum. If we can cut down the price of food because some people are happy to give more then others then that's a good thing.   >So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it?   You are calling for a world in which the price of your food is higher because the restaurant owner has to pay wait staff. Why not just... you know, voluntarily give the waitstaff that 10% rise in food prices you are calling for.","human_ref_B":"Who is saying the entire industry would collapse?  That sounds like a strawman of epic proportions.   What people say is that service would suffer, and servers would make less than they deserve.   That's a moral judgement. And an opinion that most people prefer not to served by surly minimum wage robots with no health insurance... What could possibly go wrong with that?  And sadly, it's an *accurate* judgement. Americans literally cannot trust businesses to pay a *fair living wage* to people like servers. We have a *massive* history of this. Europe is culturally different... Not to mention different laws and much more favorable minimum wages... and free health insurance.   ...and yet...   Go eat in a mid-to-low end European restaurant and time how long it takes you to get your water glass filled, order a dessert, or pay your bill.   European service is *slow as fuck* except at the very high end.   So they aren't wrong about that... Americans value fast service, and fast service is fundamentally encouraged directly by the tipping scheme... because waiters make more primarily by getting more tables in a night.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1821.0,"score_ratio":7.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"v25qi9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: The theory that eliminating tipping would cause the restaurant industry to collapse is a conspiracy perpetuated by waitstaff and the restaurant industry Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It\u2019s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff.  The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat. Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the  business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money. Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat. So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it?   As well back of house usually isn\u2019t getting tipped and some of them make less than the waitstaff. Where\u2019s the outrage?  People keep pushing the idea that somehow eliminating tips is going to lead to the collapse of the restaurant industry or food prices are going to skyrocket. If this was the case why does it seem every country that doesn\u2019t have a tipping system is doing just fine?  The tipping system in America is propped up solely by the false narrative that it is necessary. It\u2019s a conspiracy perpetuated by the restaurant industry and waitstaff and is just as credible something like the flat earth theory.   >What would change my view  Some kind of credible information that the entire restaurant Industry would collapse and not individual business that just can\u2019t support themselves    OR  That tipping is somehow a necessity","c_root_id_A":"iar0g75","c_root_id_B":"iaqjcdv","created_at_utc_A":1654057732,"created_at_utc_B":1654048586,"score_A":12,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Going to a sit down restaurant has menu prices subsidized by tipping. If the full cost of labor was represented in the cost of food you'd offset the tips you hate with increased food cost. If you go currently and don't tip your cost is being offset by people that do.  There have been experiments with non-tip models in the US but they were replaced by a service charge. The service charge was shared with the front and back of house (https:\/\/freakonomics.com\/2013\/08\/lessons-from-a-no-tipping-restaurant\/). Some customers absolutely hated it. The restaurant in the linked example is no longer and it closed long before the pandemic.  The entire restaurant industry wouldn't collapse but it's not like menu prices would remain menu prices like they are now. Restaurants would have to increase the appeal of their waitstaff jobs because there's a lot of minimum wage jobs, so they would have to offer benefits and raises. All of this would filter down into the price you pay just for the menu items. I'd actually kind of support this if it means all you anti tipping crusaders start having to pay full freight in restaurants.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019re incorrect, the tipping system is propped up by businesses that want to pay their workers sub minimum wage. It\u2019s a loophole where they can pay them less and put the responsibility of paying their workers a \u201cfair wage\u201d more directly onto customers  Wait staffs don\u2019t want less guaranteed wages in the hopes their tips might make up for it","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9146.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"v25qi9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: The theory that eliminating tipping would cause the restaurant industry to collapse is a conspiracy perpetuated by waitstaff and the restaurant industry Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It\u2019s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff.  The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat. Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the  business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money. Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat. So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it?   As well back of house usually isn\u2019t getting tipped and some of them make less than the waitstaff. Where\u2019s the outrage?  People keep pushing the idea that somehow eliminating tips is going to lead to the collapse of the restaurant industry or food prices are going to skyrocket. If this was the case why does it seem every country that doesn\u2019t have a tipping system is doing just fine?  The tipping system in America is propped up solely by the false narrative that it is necessary. It\u2019s a conspiracy perpetuated by the restaurant industry and waitstaff and is just as credible something like the flat earth theory.   >What would change my view  Some kind of credible information that the entire restaurant Industry would collapse and not individual business that just can\u2019t support themselves    OR  That tipping is somehow a necessity","c_root_id_A":"iar0g75","c_root_id_B":"iaqof4f","created_at_utc_A":1654057732,"created_at_utc_B":1654051075,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Going to a sit down restaurant has menu prices subsidized by tipping. If the full cost of labor was represented in the cost of food you'd offset the tips you hate with increased food cost. If you go currently and don't tip your cost is being offset by people that do.  There have been experiments with non-tip models in the US but they were replaced by a service charge. The service charge was shared with the front and back of house (https:\/\/freakonomics.com\/2013\/08\/lessons-from-a-no-tipping-restaurant\/). Some customers absolutely hated it. The restaurant in the linked example is no longer and it closed long before the pandemic.  The entire restaurant industry wouldn't collapse but it's not like menu prices would remain menu prices like they are now. Restaurants would have to increase the appeal of their waitstaff jobs because there's a lot of minimum wage jobs, so they would have to offer benefits and raises. All of this would filter down into the price you pay just for the menu items. I'd actually kind of support this if it means all you anti tipping crusaders start having to pay full freight in restaurants.","human_ref_B":">They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat.  Ummm... Amazon's grocery delivery services work exactly like this... and they're very popular, so... you're wrong about that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6657.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"v25qi9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: The theory that eliminating tipping would cause the restaurant industry to collapse is a conspiracy perpetuated by waitstaff and the restaurant industry Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It\u2019s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff.  The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat. Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the  business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money. Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat. So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it?   As well back of house usually isn\u2019t getting tipped and some of them make less than the waitstaff. Where\u2019s the outrage?  People keep pushing the idea that somehow eliminating tips is going to lead to the collapse of the restaurant industry or food prices are going to skyrocket. If this was the case why does it seem every country that doesn\u2019t have a tipping system is doing just fine?  The tipping system in America is propped up solely by the false narrative that it is necessary. It\u2019s a conspiracy perpetuated by the restaurant industry and waitstaff and is just as credible something like the flat earth theory.   >What would change my view  Some kind of credible information that the entire restaurant Industry would collapse and not individual business that just can\u2019t support themselves    OR  That tipping is somehow a necessity","c_root_id_A":"iaql4x6","c_root_id_B":"iar0g75","created_at_utc_A":1654049459,"created_at_utc_B":1654057732,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":">Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It\u2019s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff.  Nobody said otherwise. People are free to judge you for not doing optional things though. Not shitting my pants in an elevator is also optional.  >The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat.   I'm always amused at the people who complain about tipping. Like you guys have the ability to not tip. And yet you are calling for a world in which you are basically forced to tip. You are paying for their paycheck either way, that's how jobs work.  >Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages   Yes customer money goes into the pockets of the workers. That's how society works, regardless of whether or not your profession is a tipped one.  >and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money.   The people at the top want tables turning over just as much as your waiter does. They make more money the more customers there are as well.  >Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they\u2019re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn\u2019t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat.   The way you keep saying foot the bill really confuses me. I genuinely do not see a difference if amazon workers are making at least minimum. If we can cut down the price of food because some people are happy to give more then others then that's a good thing.   >So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it?   You are calling for a world in which the price of your food is higher because the restaurant owner has to pay wait staff. Why not just... you know, voluntarily give the waitstaff that 10% rise in food prices you are calling for.","human_ref_B":"Going to a sit down restaurant has menu prices subsidized by tipping. If the full cost of labor was represented in the cost of food you'd offset the tips you hate with increased food cost. If you go currently and don't tip your cost is being offset by people that do.  There have been experiments with non-tip models in the US but they were replaced by a service charge. The service charge was shared with the front and back of house (https:\/\/freakonomics.com\/2013\/08\/lessons-from-a-no-tipping-restaurant\/). Some customers absolutely hated it. The restaurant in the linked example is no longer and it closed long before the pandemic.  The entire restaurant industry wouldn't collapse but it's not like menu prices would remain menu prices like they are now. Restaurants would have to increase the appeal of their waitstaff jobs because there's a lot of minimum wage jobs, so they would have to offer benefits and raises. All of this would filter down into the price you pay just for the menu items. I'd actually kind of support this if it means all you anti tipping crusaders start having to pay full freight in restaurants.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8273.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"8pmskw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: A salaried worker who only needs to work 40 hours a week should never (unless ABSOLUTELY necessary) work a single minute beyond that. I have worked with such people all over the place. They routinely put in 9-10 hour days when they are only required to work 8. From what I can tell, generally it is not anything pressing. There is no imminent deadline. They simply choose to continue working when they could easily continue the work tomorrow (which they generally always need to do anyway).  Above all else, it's a matter of getting the most out of your life. 90% of people are not happy with their jobs, so it's highly unlikely that anyone who is presently at work is enjoying their life more than they would be if they were not at work.  Simply put, there is no legal requirement for you to work beyond this. An employer cannot force you to stay at work beyond 40 hours as a salaried employee. Are there fires to fight sometimes? Sure! Please do note that I'm accounting for this, that sometimes you do need to stay late. But in my experience, the people who stay late often aren't doing it because of all the crises they are fighting; they are simply choosing to stay at work longer.  If you have a job where you ARE constantly fighting fires and having to stay late, then the smart thing to do would be to get a new job, one that actually allows you to go home at time. Those jobs exist. Don't lie to yourself and say they don't.  Why can't you walk out the door at quitting time? Why can't that task wait until tomorrow? Your company hired you to work 40 hours a week. This is why, when you're sick, you are deducted 8 hours, not 9 or 10. They can't tell you you HAVE to stay late, and if they DO, then get the hell out of that job.  Honestly, the employees I see that routinely stay late are, in fact, very INefficient workers. A great example of when I had to stay late recently was a meeting scheduled for 60 minutes, yet it went for 90, and all we did was review and discuss 5 slides of data. 5. But the people in this meeting took incredibly circuitous routes in making their points and simply could not summarize their thoughts or get beyond the \"analysis paralysis\". And because of this I got to watch one fewer episode of Modern Family which I love dearly.  The only legit reason I can think of to stay late is if you want more money or want promotions and what not. But I reject the notion that money will make you happy, and if that happiness comes at the expense of actually having the time to spend it, then what's the point? Working hard at a job you don't like to make more money is like trying to get yourself comfy on a tight airplane seat vs. lying down on a cushy sofa. There's a clear winner here.  To sum up: HAVE to stay late too much? Get a new job. Insist that your work really does take you 9-10 hours? Get more efficient. Remember that you are likely among the 90% of people who dislikes your job, so spending so much as 1 extra minute on it is like willingly setting your hands on a hot stove.","c_root_id_A":"e0chvqj","c_root_id_B":"e0ch6oe","created_at_utc_A":1528488347,"created_at_utc_B":1528487717,"score_A":11,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Would you at least qualify that many so-called 9-5 jobs obviously require more work than that? I work in law, and while I lucked out on a job that\u2019s usually about 40 hrs a week, many of my (usually much higher paid) colleagues are expected to work much longer hours.  There is a difference between requirement and expectation.  Take for example some Silicon Valley gigs that have \u201cunlimited vacation\u201d. It\u2019s clear that at these jobs your hours are not curtailed by laws or rules but by extremely demanding expectations.  To say nothing of the fact that if we\u2019re really talking about getting the \u201cmost out of your life\u201d many driven folks would not consider watching modern family to be more important than climbing to the top of their respective fields or earning the respect of coworkers and clients.","human_ref_B":"It's more stressful for me to make sure that I get absolutely every issue resolved within an 8 hour day than it is to occasionally write a report\/paper or respond to something on the evening or weekend.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":630.0,"score_ratio":1.375}
+{"post_id":"8pmskw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: A salaried worker who only needs to work 40 hours a week should never (unless ABSOLUTELY necessary) work a single minute beyond that. I have worked with such people all over the place. They routinely put in 9-10 hour days when they are only required to work 8. From what I can tell, generally it is not anything pressing. There is no imminent deadline. They simply choose to continue working when they could easily continue the work tomorrow (which they generally always need to do anyway).  Above all else, it's a matter of getting the most out of your life. 90% of people are not happy with their jobs, so it's highly unlikely that anyone who is presently at work is enjoying their life more than they would be if they were not at work.  Simply put, there is no legal requirement for you to work beyond this. An employer cannot force you to stay at work beyond 40 hours as a salaried employee. Are there fires to fight sometimes? Sure! Please do note that I'm accounting for this, that sometimes you do need to stay late. But in my experience, the people who stay late often aren't doing it because of all the crises they are fighting; they are simply choosing to stay at work longer.  If you have a job where you ARE constantly fighting fires and having to stay late, then the smart thing to do would be to get a new job, one that actually allows you to go home at time. Those jobs exist. Don't lie to yourself and say they don't.  Why can't you walk out the door at quitting time? Why can't that task wait until tomorrow? Your company hired you to work 40 hours a week. This is why, when you're sick, you are deducted 8 hours, not 9 or 10. They can't tell you you HAVE to stay late, and if they DO, then get the hell out of that job.  Honestly, the employees I see that routinely stay late are, in fact, very INefficient workers. A great example of when I had to stay late recently was a meeting scheduled for 60 minutes, yet it went for 90, and all we did was review and discuss 5 slides of data. 5. But the people in this meeting took incredibly circuitous routes in making their points and simply could not summarize their thoughts or get beyond the \"analysis paralysis\". And because of this I got to watch one fewer episode of Modern Family which I love dearly.  The only legit reason I can think of to stay late is if you want more money or want promotions and what not. But I reject the notion that money will make you happy, and if that happiness comes at the expense of actually having the time to spend it, then what's the point? Working hard at a job you don't like to make more money is like trying to get yourself comfy on a tight airplane seat vs. lying down on a cushy sofa. There's a clear winner here.  To sum up: HAVE to stay late too much? Get a new job. Insist that your work really does take you 9-10 hours? Get more efficient. Remember that you are likely among the 90% of people who dislikes your job, so spending so much as 1 extra minute on it is like willingly setting your hands on a hot stove.","c_root_id_A":"e0chvqj","c_root_id_B":"e0chcrq","created_at_utc_A":1528488347,"created_at_utc_B":1528487868,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Would you at least qualify that many so-called 9-5 jobs obviously require more work than that? I work in law, and while I lucked out on a job that\u2019s usually about 40 hrs a week, many of my (usually much higher paid) colleagues are expected to work much longer hours.  There is a difference between requirement and expectation.  Take for example some Silicon Valley gigs that have \u201cunlimited vacation\u201d. It\u2019s clear that at these jobs your hours are not curtailed by laws or rules but by extremely demanding expectations.  To say nothing of the fact that if we\u2019re really talking about getting the \u201cmost out of your life\u201d many driven folks would not consider watching modern family to be more important than climbing to the top of their respective fields or earning the respect of coworkers and clients.","human_ref_B":">The only legit reason I can think of to stay late is if you want more money or want promotions and what not. But I reject the notion that money will make you happy, and if that happiness comes at the expense of actually having the time to spend it, then what's the point?  Money may not make you happy, but it sure does help, and not having money is a really easy way to be sad. Are their happy poor people? Yes. Sad rich people? Yes. But long-term financial security is a HUGE relief. What's that? My mother's deeply ill and might die? Boom, plane ticket, no sweat. Car broke down? No need to worry; I've got the cash to fix it. What would also help me be happier? A nicer job, which I could maybe get elsewhere. Or I could get promoted here, to a position that pays more and has better hours. Who are they going to promote? The clockwatcher, or the guy who puts in extra time to really do a good job?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":479.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
+{"post_id":"8pmskw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: A salaried worker who only needs to work 40 hours a week should never (unless ABSOLUTELY necessary) work a single minute beyond that. I have worked with such people all over the place. They routinely put in 9-10 hour days when they are only required to work 8. From what I can tell, generally it is not anything pressing. There is no imminent deadline. They simply choose to continue working when they could easily continue the work tomorrow (which they generally always need to do anyway).  Above all else, it's a matter of getting the most out of your life. 90% of people are not happy with their jobs, so it's highly unlikely that anyone who is presently at work is enjoying their life more than they would be if they were not at work.  Simply put, there is no legal requirement for you to work beyond this. An employer cannot force you to stay at work beyond 40 hours as a salaried employee. Are there fires to fight sometimes? Sure! Please do note that I'm accounting for this, that sometimes you do need to stay late. But in my experience, the people who stay late often aren't doing it because of all the crises they are fighting; they are simply choosing to stay at work longer.  If you have a job where you ARE constantly fighting fires and having to stay late, then the smart thing to do would be to get a new job, one that actually allows you to go home at time. Those jobs exist. Don't lie to yourself and say they don't.  Why can't you walk out the door at quitting time? Why can't that task wait until tomorrow? Your company hired you to work 40 hours a week. This is why, when you're sick, you are deducted 8 hours, not 9 or 10. They can't tell you you HAVE to stay late, and if they DO, then get the hell out of that job.  Honestly, the employees I see that routinely stay late are, in fact, very INefficient workers. A great example of when I had to stay late recently was a meeting scheduled for 60 minutes, yet it went for 90, and all we did was review and discuss 5 slides of data. 5. But the people in this meeting took incredibly circuitous routes in making their points and simply could not summarize their thoughts or get beyond the \"analysis paralysis\". And because of this I got to watch one fewer episode of Modern Family which I love dearly.  The only legit reason I can think of to stay late is if you want more money or want promotions and what not. But I reject the notion that money will make you happy, and if that happiness comes at the expense of actually having the time to spend it, then what's the point? Working hard at a job you don't like to make more money is like trying to get yourself comfy on a tight airplane seat vs. lying down on a cushy sofa. There's a clear winner here.  To sum up: HAVE to stay late too much? Get a new job. Insist that your work really does take you 9-10 hours? Get more efficient. Remember that you are likely among the 90% of people who dislikes your job, so spending so much as 1 extra minute on it is like willingly setting your hands on a hot stove.","c_root_id_A":"e0chvqj","c_root_id_B":"e0chhmd","created_at_utc_A":1528488347,"created_at_utc_B":1528487989,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Would you at least qualify that many so-called 9-5 jobs obviously require more work than that? I work in law, and while I lucked out on a job that\u2019s usually about 40 hrs a week, many of my (usually much higher paid) colleagues are expected to work much longer hours.  There is a difference between requirement and expectation.  Take for example some Silicon Valley gigs that have \u201cunlimited vacation\u201d. It\u2019s clear that at these jobs your hours are not curtailed by laws or rules but by extremely demanding expectations.  To say nothing of the fact that if we\u2019re really talking about getting the \u201cmost out of your life\u201d many driven folks would not consider watching modern family to be more important than climbing to the top of their respective fields or earning the respect of coworkers and clients.","human_ref_B":"Most Salaried workers are required to receive compensation if they work overtime consistently. Only a few high level managerial positions, and some specific jobs such as Teachers or Nurses are exempted from this compensation. These are also jobs that it is absolutely necessary for them to work more hours.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":358.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"8pmskw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: A salaried worker who only needs to work 40 hours a week should never (unless ABSOLUTELY necessary) work a single minute beyond that. I have worked with such people all over the place. They routinely put in 9-10 hour days when they are only required to work 8. From what I can tell, generally it is not anything pressing. There is no imminent deadline. They simply choose to continue working when they could easily continue the work tomorrow (which they generally always need to do anyway).  Above all else, it's a matter of getting the most out of your life. 90% of people are not happy with their jobs, so it's highly unlikely that anyone who is presently at work is enjoying their life more than they would be if they were not at work.  Simply put, there is no legal requirement for you to work beyond this. An employer cannot force you to stay at work beyond 40 hours as a salaried employee. Are there fires to fight sometimes? Sure! Please do note that I'm accounting for this, that sometimes you do need to stay late. But in my experience, the people who stay late often aren't doing it because of all the crises they are fighting; they are simply choosing to stay at work longer.  If you have a job where you ARE constantly fighting fires and having to stay late, then the smart thing to do would be to get a new job, one that actually allows you to go home at time. Those jobs exist. Don't lie to yourself and say they don't.  Why can't you walk out the door at quitting time? Why can't that task wait until tomorrow? Your company hired you to work 40 hours a week. This is why, when you're sick, you are deducted 8 hours, not 9 or 10. They can't tell you you HAVE to stay late, and if they DO, then get the hell out of that job.  Honestly, the employees I see that routinely stay late are, in fact, very INefficient workers. A great example of when I had to stay late recently was a meeting scheduled for 60 minutes, yet it went for 90, and all we did was review and discuss 5 slides of data. 5. But the people in this meeting took incredibly circuitous routes in making their points and simply could not summarize their thoughts or get beyond the \"analysis paralysis\". And because of this I got to watch one fewer episode of Modern Family which I love dearly.  The only legit reason I can think of to stay late is if you want more money or want promotions and what not. But I reject the notion that money will make you happy, and if that happiness comes at the expense of actually having the time to spend it, then what's the point? Working hard at a job you don't like to make more money is like trying to get yourself comfy on a tight airplane seat vs. lying down on a cushy sofa. There's a clear winner here.  To sum up: HAVE to stay late too much? Get a new job. Insist that your work really does take you 9-10 hours? Get more efficient. Remember that you are likely among the 90% of people who dislikes your job, so spending so much as 1 extra minute on it is like willingly setting your hands on a hot stove.","c_root_id_A":"e0ch3ox","c_root_id_B":"e0chvqj","created_at_utc_A":1528487641,"created_at_utc_B":1528488347,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Can you clarify - are you in the US?  That will impact the \"legality\" question.","human_ref_B":"Would you at least qualify that many so-called 9-5 jobs obviously require more work than that? I work in law, and while I lucked out on a job that\u2019s usually about 40 hrs a week, many of my (usually much higher paid) colleagues are expected to work much longer hours.  There is a difference between requirement and expectation.  Take for example some Silicon Valley gigs that have \u201cunlimited vacation\u201d. It\u2019s clear that at these jobs your hours are not curtailed by laws or rules but by extremely demanding expectations.  To say nothing of the fact that if we\u2019re really talking about getting the \u201cmost out of your life\u201d many driven folks would not consider watching modern family to be more important than climbing to the top of their respective fields or earning the respect of coworkers and clients.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":706.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"8pmskw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: A salaried worker who only needs to work 40 hours a week should never (unless ABSOLUTELY necessary) work a single minute beyond that. I have worked with such people all over the place. They routinely put in 9-10 hour days when they are only required to work 8. From what I can tell, generally it is not anything pressing. There is no imminent deadline. They simply choose to continue working when they could easily continue the work tomorrow (which they generally always need to do anyway).  Above all else, it's a matter of getting the most out of your life. 90% of people are not happy with their jobs, so it's highly unlikely that anyone who is presently at work is enjoying their life more than they would be if they were not at work.  Simply put, there is no legal requirement for you to work beyond this. An employer cannot force you to stay at work beyond 40 hours as a salaried employee. Are there fires to fight sometimes? Sure! Please do note that I'm accounting for this, that sometimes you do need to stay late. But in my experience, the people who stay late often aren't doing it because of all the crises they are fighting; they are simply choosing to stay at work longer.  If you have a job where you ARE constantly fighting fires and having to stay late, then the smart thing to do would be to get a new job, one that actually allows you to go home at time. Those jobs exist. Don't lie to yourself and say they don't.  Why can't you walk out the door at quitting time? Why can't that task wait until tomorrow? Your company hired you to work 40 hours a week. This is why, when you're sick, you are deducted 8 hours, not 9 or 10. They can't tell you you HAVE to stay late, and if they DO, then get the hell out of that job.  Honestly, the employees I see that routinely stay late are, in fact, very INefficient workers. A great example of when I had to stay late recently was a meeting scheduled for 60 minutes, yet it went for 90, and all we did was review and discuss 5 slides of data. 5. But the people in this meeting took incredibly circuitous routes in making their points and simply could not summarize their thoughts or get beyond the \"analysis paralysis\". And because of this I got to watch one fewer episode of Modern Family which I love dearly.  The only legit reason I can think of to stay late is if you want more money or want promotions and what not. But I reject the notion that money will make you happy, and if that happiness comes at the expense of actually having the time to spend it, then what's the point? Working hard at a job you don't like to make more money is like trying to get yourself comfy on a tight airplane seat vs. lying down on a cushy sofa. There's a clear winner here.  To sum up: HAVE to stay late too much? Get a new job. Insist that your work really does take you 9-10 hours? Get more efficient. Remember that you are likely among the 90% of people who dislikes your job, so spending so much as 1 extra minute on it is like willingly setting your hands on a hot stove.","c_root_id_A":"e0ch6oe","c_root_id_B":"e0ch3ox","created_at_utc_A":1528487717,"created_at_utc_B":1528487641,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's more stressful for me to make sure that I get absolutely every issue resolved within an 8 hour day than it is to occasionally write a report\/paper or respond to something on the evening or weekend.","human_ref_B":"Can you clarify - are you in the US?  That will impact the \"legality\" question.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":76.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"8pmskw","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: A salaried worker who only needs to work 40 hours a week should never (unless ABSOLUTELY necessary) work a single minute beyond that. I have worked with such people all over the place. They routinely put in 9-10 hour days when they are only required to work 8. From what I can tell, generally it is not anything pressing. There is no imminent deadline. They simply choose to continue working when they could easily continue the work tomorrow (which they generally always need to do anyway).  Above all else, it's a matter of getting the most out of your life. 90% of people are not happy with their jobs, so it's highly unlikely that anyone who is presently at work is enjoying their life more than they would be if they were not at work.  Simply put, there is no legal requirement for you to work beyond this. An employer cannot force you to stay at work beyond 40 hours as a salaried employee. Are there fires to fight sometimes? Sure! Please do note that I'm accounting for this, that sometimes you do need to stay late. But in my experience, the people who stay late often aren't doing it because of all the crises they are fighting; they are simply choosing to stay at work longer.  If you have a job where you ARE constantly fighting fires and having to stay late, then the smart thing to do would be to get a new job, one that actually allows you to go home at time. Those jobs exist. Don't lie to yourself and say they don't.  Why can't you walk out the door at quitting time? Why can't that task wait until tomorrow? Your company hired you to work 40 hours a week. This is why, when you're sick, you are deducted 8 hours, not 9 or 10. They can't tell you you HAVE to stay late, and if they DO, then get the hell out of that job.  Honestly, the employees I see that routinely stay late are, in fact, very INefficient workers. A great example of when I had to stay late recently was a meeting scheduled for 60 minutes, yet it went for 90, and all we did was review and discuss 5 slides of data. 5. But the people in this meeting took incredibly circuitous routes in making their points and simply could not summarize their thoughts or get beyond the \"analysis paralysis\". And because of this I got to watch one fewer episode of Modern Family which I love dearly.  The only legit reason I can think of to stay late is if you want more money or want promotions and what not. But I reject the notion that money will make you happy, and if that happiness comes at the expense of actually having the time to spend it, then what's the point? Working hard at a job you don't like to make more money is like trying to get yourself comfy on a tight airplane seat vs. lying down on a cushy sofa. There's a clear winner here.  To sum up: HAVE to stay late too much? Get a new job. Insist that your work really does take you 9-10 hours? Get more efficient. Remember that you are likely among the 90% of people who dislikes your job, so spending so much as 1 extra minute on it is like willingly setting your hands on a hot stove.","c_root_id_A":"e0chhmd","c_root_id_B":"e0chcrq","created_at_utc_A":1528487989,"created_at_utc_B":1528487868,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Most Salaried workers are required to receive compensation if they work overtime consistently. Only a few high level managerial positions, and some specific jobs such as Teachers or Nurses are exempted from this compensation. These are also jobs that it is absolutely necessary for them to work more hours.","human_ref_B":">The only legit reason I can think of to stay late is if you want more money or want promotions and what not. But I reject the notion that money will make you happy, and if that happiness comes at the expense of actually having the time to spend it, then what's the point?  Money may not make you happy, but it sure does help, and not having money is a really easy way to be sad. Are their happy poor people? Yes. Sad rich people? Yes. But long-term financial security is a HUGE relief. What's that? My mother's deeply ill and might die? Boom, plane ticket, no sweat. Car broke down? No need to worry; I've got the cash to fix it. What would also help me be happier? A nicer job, which I could maybe get elsewhere. Or I could get promoted here, to a position that pays more and has better hours. Who are they going to promote? The clockwatcher, or the guy who puts in extra time to really do a good job?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":121.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hmfypp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: In the extreme long term (over thousands of years), if humanity had never invented religion we would be in a significantly worse place both academically and technologically than we are now Whether Mosques, Synagogues, Churches, or Temples; religious establishments had pushed humanity to expand our knowledge of the physical world by developing maths such as geometry, engineering, and other sciences, including anatomy from the artwork on the inside of these religious establishments. Keep in mind, many if not most religions that inspired these things wouldn't be agreeable with Western Fundamentalist Christianity, but religion is one of the things that always gets funding in many societies to achieve things like large temples that required unique ingenuity that may not have been seen before. Yes, the Romans, for example, built many non religious structures that puzzled even much more recent explorers long after the Fall of Rome- but the thing that preserved much of the Roman information was the Christian Monastery and then the Islamic Monastery.      Even in early, rural, America; Christianity played a part in challenging and developing the intellectual side of humanity. Over generations, even people who were incredibly poor would pass down the family King James Bible, which is now what we would consider at an eighth grade reading level. Although it is pretty much standard to finish High School and most likely get an associates degree these days, if you could read at an eighth grade level in revolutionary America, you were pretty well educated compared to the rest of the world.","c_root_id_A":"fx4x0f7","c_root_id_B":"fx4ya6o","created_at_utc_A":1594068113,"created_at_utc_B":1594068730,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> religious establishments had pushed humanity to expand our knowledge of the physical world by developing maths such as geometry, engineering, and other sciences  What...? Where did you get this?   Most of those were begun despite religion. Some of them were begun by groups that practices religion but only because the vast majority of people back then practiced religion. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that religion encouraged it.   You also forget that a lack of religion isn't .... nothing.... People would still be curious and resources and time would be spent on other things, things that very well (and most likely) would promote curiousity even more.   Look at the **core** of religion - it is to accept something as the absolute truth. That is **the exact opposite** of science.","human_ref_B":"Your whole argument depends on one very unrealistic assumption, and that is that if religion was never a thing or, at least was never as influential as it is, then no one would have paid or incited for technological\/scientific advancements; and that is just unrealistic considering how many of those advancements where impulsed by warfare, economic gain, or simple curiosity of, generally, a wealthy person.   A clear example of this are the Greeks and Romans, I know that you addressed that too, but you forgot the fact that a lot of the pre-Christian era knowledge was destroyed for contradicting Christian doctrine, not to mention, that again you're assuming that if the church wasn't there no one would have done the same, which is a baseless assumption and imo a very unlikely one at that, giving the advantage that such knowledge could bring.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":617.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"hmfypp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: In the extreme long term (over thousands of years), if humanity had never invented religion we would be in a significantly worse place both academically and technologically than we are now Whether Mosques, Synagogues, Churches, or Temples; religious establishments had pushed humanity to expand our knowledge of the physical world by developing maths such as geometry, engineering, and other sciences, including anatomy from the artwork on the inside of these religious establishments. Keep in mind, many if not most religions that inspired these things wouldn't be agreeable with Western Fundamentalist Christianity, but religion is one of the things that always gets funding in many societies to achieve things like large temples that required unique ingenuity that may not have been seen before. Yes, the Romans, for example, built many non religious structures that puzzled even much more recent explorers long after the Fall of Rome- but the thing that preserved much of the Roman information was the Christian Monastery and then the Islamic Monastery.      Even in early, rural, America; Christianity played a part in challenging and developing the intellectual side of humanity. Over generations, even people who were incredibly poor would pass down the family King James Bible, which is now what we would consider at an eighth grade reading level. Although it is pretty much standard to finish High School and most likely get an associates degree these days, if you could read at an eighth grade level in revolutionary America, you were pretty well educated compared to the rest of the world.","c_root_id_A":"fx4xslz","c_root_id_B":"fx4ya6o","created_at_utc_A":1594068491,"created_at_utc_B":1594068730,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"So, to summarize, you believe that if it wasn't for religion, humanity would be far behind in science. And you think that is the case because when you observe the past, religion has always been close to education. Am I correct ?     Just a quick thought exercise : What kind of evidence could we hypothetically discover that could change your mind ?","human_ref_B":"Your whole argument depends on one very unrealistic assumption, and that is that if religion was never a thing or, at least was never as influential as it is, then no one would have paid or incited for technological\/scientific advancements; and that is just unrealistic considering how many of those advancements where impulsed by warfare, economic gain, or simple curiosity of, generally, a wealthy person.   A clear example of this are the Greeks and Romans, I know that you addressed that too, but you forgot the fact that a lot of the pre-Christian era knowledge was destroyed for contradicting Christian doctrine, not to mention, that again you're assuming that if the church wasn't there no one would have done the same, which is a baseless assumption and imo a very unlikely one at that, giving the advantage that such knowledge could bring.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":239.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"hmfypp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: In the extreme long term (over thousands of years), if humanity had never invented religion we would be in a significantly worse place both academically and technologically than we are now Whether Mosques, Synagogues, Churches, or Temples; religious establishments had pushed humanity to expand our knowledge of the physical world by developing maths such as geometry, engineering, and other sciences, including anatomy from the artwork on the inside of these religious establishments. Keep in mind, many if not most religions that inspired these things wouldn't be agreeable with Western Fundamentalist Christianity, but religion is one of the things that always gets funding in many societies to achieve things like large temples that required unique ingenuity that may not have been seen before. Yes, the Romans, for example, built many non religious structures that puzzled even much more recent explorers long after the Fall of Rome- but the thing that preserved much of the Roman information was the Christian Monastery and then the Islamic Monastery.      Even in early, rural, America; Christianity played a part in challenging and developing the intellectual side of humanity. Over generations, even people who were incredibly poor would pass down the family King James Bible, which is now what we would consider at an eighth grade reading level. Although it is pretty much standard to finish High School and most likely get an associates degree these days, if you could read at an eighth grade level in revolutionary America, you were pretty well educated compared to the rest of the world.","c_root_id_A":"fx4ydor","c_root_id_B":"fx4xslz","created_at_utc_A":1594068778,"created_at_utc_B":1594068491,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Invented religion? I'd argue religion was not invented. It's just a natural part of human evolution. No one really chose to create religion so we can't really explore a possibility of humans never creating it in the first place. Not in good faith at least.  But yes, there is a lot bias against religion nowadays despite them quite often helping academics and artists.","human_ref_B":"So, to summarize, you believe that if it wasn't for religion, humanity would be far behind in science. And you think that is the case because when you observe the past, religion has always been close to education. Am I correct ?     Just a quick thought exercise : What kind of evidence could we hypothetically discover that could change your mind ?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":287.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hmfypp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: In the extreme long term (over thousands of years), if humanity had never invented religion we would be in a significantly worse place both academically and technologically than we are now Whether Mosques, Synagogues, Churches, or Temples; religious establishments had pushed humanity to expand our knowledge of the physical world by developing maths such as geometry, engineering, and other sciences, including anatomy from the artwork on the inside of these religious establishments. Keep in mind, many if not most religions that inspired these things wouldn't be agreeable with Western Fundamentalist Christianity, but religion is one of the things that always gets funding in many societies to achieve things like large temples that required unique ingenuity that may not have been seen before. Yes, the Romans, for example, built many non religious structures that puzzled even much more recent explorers long after the Fall of Rome- but the thing that preserved much of the Roman information was the Christian Monastery and then the Islamic Monastery.      Even in early, rural, America; Christianity played a part in challenging and developing the intellectual side of humanity. Over generations, even people who were incredibly poor would pass down the family King James Bible, which is now what we would consider at an eighth grade reading level. Although it is pretty much standard to finish High School and most likely get an associates degree these days, if you could read at an eighth grade level in revolutionary America, you were pretty well educated compared to the rest of the world.","c_root_id_A":"fx50g7s","c_root_id_B":"fx4xslz","created_at_utc_A":1594069782,"created_at_utc_B":1594068491,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Religion is a cultural technology that was invented to create a shared history and cultural identity that could be exported. Much like law, the written word, artefacts, and lyric poetry, religion is on the surface a completely neutral tool.  This however forgoes the various applications of religion that actually impeded the progress of many social aspects of society and caused countless many people's lives to be destroyed.  Take Catholicism for instance, which was altered and kept popular because of its inbuilt rules which directly supported Feudalism: second sons could be sent away and still hold power so they wouldn't go to war with elder brothers, homosexuality and adultery were made sins to keep bloodlines pure etc.  Some scholars point to the bubonic plague killing the labour market for the end of Feudalism, and it wasn't until the 18th century that monarchy began to be dismantled because of the significant disadvantages common people had by living in a religious world.  For essentially 1000 years the continent was ravaged by religious issues. How many potential Newtons or Shakespeares or Lockes were killed before their time either in a pointless religious war or as a direct result of religious intolerance? We may never know.  And that is just one part of the world, during one era.  From Cuzco to Kolkata, the concept of divinity has been filtered through religion to cause harm. And that harm outweighs the good.","human_ref_B":"So, to summarize, you believe that if it wasn't for religion, humanity would be far behind in science. And you think that is the case because when you observe the past, religion has always been close to education. Am I correct ?     Just a quick thought exercise : What kind of evidence could we hypothetically discover that could change your mind ?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1291.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hmfypp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: In the extreme long term (over thousands of years), if humanity had never invented religion we would be in a significantly worse place both academically and technologically than we are now Whether Mosques, Synagogues, Churches, or Temples; religious establishments had pushed humanity to expand our knowledge of the physical world by developing maths such as geometry, engineering, and other sciences, including anatomy from the artwork on the inside of these religious establishments. Keep in mind, many if not most religions that inspired these things wouldn't be agreeable with Western Fundamentalist Christianity, but religion is one of the things that always gets funding in many societies to achieve things like large temples that required unique ingenuity that may not have been seen before. Yes, the Romans, for example, built many non religious structures that puzzled even much more recent explorers long after the Fall of Rome- but the thing that preserved much of the Roman information was the Christian Monastery and then the Islamic Monastery.      Even in early, rural, America; Christianity played a part in challenging and developing the intellectual side of humanity. Over generations, even people who were incredibly poor would pass down the family King James Bible, which is now what we would consider at an eighth grade reading level. Although it is pretty much standard to finish High School and most likely get an associates degree these days, if you could read at an eighth grade level in revolutionary America, you were pretty well educated compared to the rest of the world.","c_root_id_A":"fx4xslz","c_root_id_B":"fx50qss","created_at_utc_A":1594068491,"created_at_utc_B":1594069929,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So, to summarize, you believe that if it wasn't for religion, humanity would be far behind in science. And you think that is the case because when you observe the past, religion has always been close to education. Am I correct ?     Just a quick thought exercise : What kind of evidence could we hypothetically discover that could change your mind ?","human_ref_B":"The first problem in your thesis is the term 'invented', name one country where the original indigenous population did not develop any form of supernatural worship. I don't think your thesis is possible. Groups of people have always and everywhere tried to answer questions they were not readily equiped to answer yet.   Aside from that, you have no clue how societies would have organized if there was no yearning for the supernatural. What would have become of all the vast resources of the ancient world invested in megalomaniacal, useless building projects? Which breakthroughs could've been developed hundreds, if not thousands, of years earlier without censorship and limitations imposed by religious institutes?  The world did not fully start blossoming until the secular humanist values of the enlightenment came about. As religion started to demystify so did our natural world with all the splendor of our modern technology and science as a result.  So I disagree with you. That doesn't mean that religion hasn't been a strong tool in history to allocate funds. And that sometimes it accidentally hit the nail on the head and caused societies to progress scientifically and technologically. That doesn't mean however that the dogmatic restrictions imposed on the population, and the strongly anti-scientific claims in most religions, didn't extremely hamper progress as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1438.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hmfypp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: In the extreme long term (over thousands of years), if humanity had never invented religion we would be in a significantly worse place both academically and technologically than we are now Whether Mosques, Synagogues, Churches, or Temples; religious establishments had pushed humanity to expand our knowledge of the physical world by developing maths such as geometry, engineering, and other sciences, including anatomy from the artwork on the inside of these religious establishments. Keep in mind, many if not most religions that inspired these things wouldn't be agreeable with Western Fundamentalist Christianity, but religion is one of the things that always gets funding in many societies to achieve things like large temples that required unique ingenuity that may not have been seen before. Yes, the Romans, for example, built many non religious structures that puzzled even much more recent explorers long after the Fall of Rome- but the thing that preserved much of the Roman information was the Christian Monastery and then the Islamic Monastery.      Even in early, rural, America; Christianity played a part in challenging and developing the intellectual side of humanity. Over generations, even people who were incredibly poor would pass down the family King James Bible, which is now what we would consider at an eighth grade reading level. Although it is pretty much standard to finish High School and most likely get an associates degree these days, if you could read at an eighth grade level in revolutionary America, you were pretty well educated compared to the rest of the world.","c_root_id_A":"fx4xslz","c_root_id_B":"fx56jfk","created_at_utc_A":1594068491,"created_at_utc_B":1594072819,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So, to summarize, you believe that if it wasn't for religion, humanity would be far behind in science. And you think that is the case because when you observe the past, religion has always been close to education. Am I correct ?     Just a quick thought exercise : What kind of evidence could we hypothetically discover that could change your mind ?","human_ref_B":"The problem is that you seem to be imagining a world where religion is not simply gone from history but replaced with nothing. I think it stands to reason that without religion, people would still be trying to fill the roles that religion fills in a society. It's not like an atheistic society would have no need for philosophy or moral law. In fact, in a society where scripture wasn't considered an epistemologically valid source of knowledge for answering life's big questions, people would have no choice but to investigate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4328.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"v9sp51","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The stock market is essentially a well-regulated Ponzi scheme Full disclosure, I have a significant portion of my net worth in stocks, so this view is very much against my self interest.  So the prevailing wisdom is: as an average person, the best thing you can do to protect and grow your wealth is to invest your money in broad market ETFs or mutual funds.  The basic concept is, when you invest in a company, you are buying a piece of that company, and as the company grows and becomes more valuable, the value of your share raises as well.  On the small scale, this concept makes a lot of sense.  For instance, let's say me and a couple friends buy a bakery down the street.  We each own a 30% share in the bakery, and enjoy a 30% share of the profits each month.  When decisions have to be made about the operation of the bakery, the three of us sit down together and have the authority to make a decision.  And probably I can grab a free piece of freshly baked bread whenever I decided to stop by.  But let's say I spend $2k on a share of Google stock.  In which practical way does my \"ownership\" of this portion of the company affect my relationship with Google?  I don't get any privileged access to the data they're collecting.  I don't get priority treatment if I have to contact customer service.    In terms of my relationship with a company, for the average investor the sum total of your involvement with the company is that you get to vote on certain company decisions, where you have basically zero real influence because large interests controlling large portions of the stock have a million more votes than you.  You *might* get a dividend payment, depending on the stock.  But for example, with a company like AAPL, even if they gave a super high dividend of $1 per quarter, it would take like 34 years for one share of AAPL stock to pay for itself.  Your \"investment\" is also not really investing, in the sense of giving a company additional capital with which to grow and improve their business, since you're just buying the share off some other person, and none of that money is going back to the company.  So for all intents and purposes, the only real tangible value of owning a stock for the average person is the promise that it will be worth more to someone else in the future.  So basically, from a logical point of view, there is no real practical difference between a stock or any purely speculative asset, like an NFT or cryptocurrency token or a rare Pok\u00e9mon card.  It's just a piece of paper with a company's name on it, which cannot be meaningfully exchanged for any goods, services or utility.  It's just a piece of paper which hopefully will be worth more in the future.  And this kind of works fine, because assuming that the economy is generally growing over time, which it always has, and assuming everyone keeps buying into it, there will essentially always be a \"greater fool\" in the future who will want that piece of paper, to in turn sell it to an even greater fool down the line.  So it seems to me we've chosen this as a back-handed way of dealing with taking care of retiring people: we tell young working people they have to buy the shares from the old people, so those old people can go off and buy a condo in Florida.  And in turn those young working people trust their stocks are going to be worth something to the young people after them.  So to sum it all up, my view is that the whole stock market, as far as it functions for the average investor, is basically a scheme in which the main function is to transfer money from new investors to old investors, and it's only made sustainable by a steady influx of new investors, much like a Ponzi scheme or any speculative asset bubble.  The only real difference is that society kind of all agreed on the S&P 500 as the socially acceptable Ponzi, so it's kind of works for the most part.  Anyway, that's honestly the conclusion I can come to after trying to make sense of this system.  But it cannot possibly be that stupid, so please go ahead and find holes in my understanding and change my view!","c_root_id_A":"ibyc3x8","c_root_id_B":"ibyceku","created_at_utc_A":1654935069,"created_at_utc_B":1654935347,"score_A":4,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"The difference is the one you pointed out yourself; the value a stock has on the market is reflective of the perception of the future earnings value of that stock. If a stock is valued at more than its dividend return suggests it should be, like the example you identified, this implies that there is a body of opinion that the business underlying that stock will grow in time. It\u2019s this body of opinion that causes the value to rise.   Now, are many people incorrect, I\u2019ll informed, mistaken in these opinions? Yes they are.  But that doesn\u2019t mean the underlying basis doesn\u2019t exist. In a Ponzi scheme there is no underlying basis - it\u2019s a scam to its core. This is the difference.","human_ref_B":">Your \"investment\" is also not really investing, in the sense of giving a company additional capital with which to grow and improve their business, since you're just buying the share off some other person, and none of that money is going back to the company.  In that sense by selling their stock they are pulling out their investment, leaving a financial gap which you fill in. Absent of any other option an investor who needs the liquidity may instead be forced to liquidate the company assets.  As a whole you're half right, there is the base value of a company which can clearly be seen with your bakery example, where it's value would usually be based on it's physical assets and overall financial health & profitability, then there's the speculative side which bumps up the value of the stock by trends often attached to the popularity of the company\/brand, which is kind of unavoidable.  However this concept would also be true for any physical goods like speculation on commodities, etc... so unless you also consider buying actual commodities a \"ponzi\" due to their susceptibility to market speculation above their value as a utility, I don't think it's necessarily fair to single out the stock market as a \"ponzi\".","labels":0,"seconds_difference":278.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
+{"post_id":"v9sp51","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The stock market is essentially a well-regulated Ponzi scheme Full disclosure, I have a significant portion of my net worth in stocks, so this view is very much against my self interest.  So the prevailing wisdom is: as an average person, the best thing you can do to protect and grow your wealth is to invest your money in broad market ETFs or mutual funds.  The basic concept is, when you invest in a company, you are buying a piece of that company, and as the company grows and becomes more valuable, the value of your share raises as well.  On the small scale, this concept makes a lot of sense.  For instance, let's say me and a couple friends buy a bakery down the street.  We each own a 30% share in the bakery, and enjoy a 30% share of the profits each month.  When decisions have to be made about the operation of the bakery, the three of us sit down together and have the authority to make a decision.  And probably I can grab a free piece of freshly baked bread whenever I decided to stop by.  But let's say I spend $2k on a share of Google stock.  In which practical way does my \"ownership\" of this portion of the company affect my relationship with Google?  I don't get any privileged access to the data they're collecting.  I don't get priority treatment if I have to contact customer service.    In terms of my relationship with a company, for the average investor the sum total of your involvement with the company is that you get to vote on certain company decisions, where you have basically zero real influence because large interests controlling large portions of the stock have a million more votes than you.  You *might* get a dividend payment, depending on the stock.  But for example, with a company like AAPL, even if they gave a super high dividend of $1 per quarter, it would take like 34 years for one share of AAPL stock to pay for itself.  Your \"investment\" is also not really investing, in the sense of giving a company additional capital with which to grow and improve their business, since you're just buying the share off some other person, and none of that money is going back to the company.  So for all intents and purposes, the only real tangible value of owning a stock for the average person is the promise that it will be worth more to someone else in the future.  So basically, from a logical point of view, there is no real practical difference between a stock or any purely speculative asset, like an NFT or cryptocurrency token or a rare Pok\u00e9mon card.  It's just a piece of paper with a company's name on it, which cannot be meaningfully exchanged for any goods, services or utility.  It's just a piece of paper which hopefully will be worth more in the future.  And this kind of works fine, because assuming that the economy is generally growing over time, which it always has, and assuming everyone keeps buying into it, there will essentially always be a \"greater fool\" in the future who will want that piece of paper, to in turn sell it to an even greater fool down the line.  So it seems to me we've chosen this as a back-handed way of dealing with taking care of retiring people: we tell young working people they have to buy the shares from the old people, so those old people can go off and buy a condo in Florida.  And in turn those young working people trust their stocks are going to be worth something to the young people after them.  So to sum it all up, my view is that the whole stock market, as far as it functions for the average investor, is basically a scheme in which the main function is to transfer money from new investors to old investors, and it's only made sustainable by a steady influx of new investors, much like a Ponzi scheme or any speculative asset bubble.  The only real difference is that society kind of all agreed on the S&P 500 as the socially acceptable Ponzi, so it's kind of works for the most part.  Anyway, that's honestly the conclusion I can come to after trying to make sense of this system.  But it cannot possibly be that stupid, so please go ahead and find holes in my understanding and change my view!","c_root_id_A":"ibyc3x8","c_root_id_B":"ibymchi","created_at_utc_A":1654935069,"created_at_utc_B":1654944679,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The difference is the one you pointed out yourself; the value a stock has on the market is reflective of the perception of the future earnings value of that stock. If a stock is valued at more than its dividend return suggests it should be, like the example you identified, this implies that there is a body of opinion that the business underlying that stock will grow in time. It\u2019s this body of opinion that causes the value to rise.   Now, are many people incorrect, I\u2019ll informed, mistaken in these opinions? Yes they are.  But that doesn\u2019t mean the underlying basis doesn\u2019t exist. In a Ponzi scheme there is no underlying basis - it\u2019s a scam to its core. This is the difference.","human_ref_B":"It sounds like the issue here is that the stock market abstracts and dilutes concepts of ownership so much that they feel unreal.    I totally get how owning one share of Google feels practically worthless.  It\u2019s only about 0.0000001% of the company after all.   But there is a real difference between \u201cpractically\u201d worthless and actually worthless.    As small as that share is, it gives you the exact same proportional ownership rights as an institution that owns 20% of the shares.   You can go to the shareholder meetings, listen in to the calls, and cast your vote in shareholder decisions.    If someone decided to buy Google to take it private, they\u2019d have to buy your share at the agreed value to take full ownership.  You\u2019re right that buying and selling that share doesn\u2019t really change the capital investment in the company, but the same is true for your bakery example.  If one of your friends wants to get out of the bakery business, they have to sell their share to someone.  Either the other two of you can buy it, which is basically a stock buy-back, or they can sell to someone new.  In fact, lots of small businesses do fall apart over that kind of dispute.    Someone wants to leave the business but the other owners can\u2019t afford to buy them out and there\u2019s no good mechanism to sell, so the whole thing just falls apart.    Basically what happened to my favorite restaurants in my hometown when the kids inherited it.     One of the points of public stock markets is that abstracting those issues to the point that it\u2019s hard to see the relationship to tangible ownership solves some of those problems.   That\u2019s really what we mean by \u201cliquidity.\u201d   My $2,000 can\u2019t buy me a 1\/3 share of a local bakery, but it can buy me a very very small share of Google.   My father in law has been trying to sell his practice for about six months so he can retire, but I can get out of the search engine business in roughly the 30 seconds it takes to click a button.  The principles are all basically the same, they just operate on scales that are hard to wrap your head around.   Of course, the problem is that most investors just don\u2019t wrap their heads around it because they decide it isn\u2019t worth their time to think about how Google operates or how they should cast their one proxy vote.  But that gets into issues of corporate governance and shareholder activism, which is a step beyond your more basic concerns.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9610.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj3m2g5","c_root_id_B":"hj3hpvp","created_at_utc_A":1635907678,"created_at_utc_B":1635905798,"score_A":14,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Sounds like you really didn\u2019t think this through fully. At some point we can\u2019t just court marshal everyone and their mother. If there is big enough pushback it simply can\u2019t be done. That said I don\u2019t think we are to that point and yes I understand that the military is a special section of the population. That said covid is not remotely a life threatening condition for anyone active duty. We are talking people who are young and very healthy. Covid simply doesn\u2019t effect people in that group really. Sure people 60 years old have something to worry about but that simply isn\u2019t who we send to war. You are saying people should be having their lives fucked for not caring about getting sick for two days. Military members are not cheap to train an flushing that much money down the drain isn\u2019t a wise choice. A carrot is far better than the rod when trying to convince people. Attitudes such as this where you claim this against mandates are evil it a large catalyst to push people away from it. It is counter productive.   Further you say the right has politicized the issue. That is simply false. It has been done by both sides. We say Harris saying she wouldn\u2019t accept a vax that was developed by trump pre election. Covid is a political thing, not a public health matter. It has become a point of morals for many. There are ample amounts of people who are not against vaccines but are against mandates like Biden is pushing right now. It is seen a mater of if there is no push back here then when?","human_ref_B":"1. Both wings have politicized the vaccine, not just the right. 2. The claim that \"science shows it's safe\" ignores the studies that show heart damage in young men and uterine lining damage in young women. Yes, these side effects are rare, but so is death in young people from covid; so are these side effects really worth the risk for young people who have little-to-no chance of dying from covid to begin with? Asking this question is not anti-science. To not be allowed to ask this question is what is anti-science. 3. While I agree that is the duty of military members to obey orders, they also have a duty to disobey orders that are damaging to their overall mission. We saw in WW2 what damage can be done when soldiers obey orders unquestioningly. For comparison: all US military members are brought up to date on their MMR (Measles Mumps Rubella) vaccines when they join up and they do not have a choice in the matter. I agree with this. These diseases are dangerous and damaging. The same cannot be said for Covid-19. The chances of a young healthy person dying of covid-19 is literally a few tenths of a percent. Young healthy people make up the large majority of military personnel. There is literally no argument that can be made that covid places the readiness and safety of the military in jeopardy; and therefore no arguement that can be made that to disobey the order to vaccinate places fellow soliders at risk.  Covid-19 vaccine mandates are about compliance, and nothing more. You need to ask yourself why you feel so strongly about young, healthy people at virtually no risk to covid getting a vaccine with no long term studies to prove it's efficacy and safety. You might just be a facist....","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1880.0,"score_ratio":1.0769230769}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj3m2g5","c_root_id_B":"hj3f3q9","created_at_utc_A":1635907678,"created_at_utc_B":1635904682,"score_A":14,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Sounds like you really didn\u2019t think this through fully. At some point we can\u2019t just court marshal everyone and their mother. If there is big enough pushback it simply can\u2019t be done. That said I don\u2019t think we are to that point and yes I understand that the military is a special section of the population. That said covid is not remotely a life threatening condition for anyone active duty. We are talking people who are young and very healthy. Covid simply doesn\u2019t effect people in that group really. Sure people 60 years old have something to worry about but that simply isn\u2019t who we send to war. You are saying people should be having their lives fucked for not caring about getting sick for two days. Military members are not cheap to train an flushing that much money down the drain isn\u2019t a wise choice. A carrot is far better than the rod when trying to convince people. Attitudes such as this where you claim this against mandates are evil it a large catalyst to push people away from it. It is counter productive.   Further you say the right has politicized the issue. That is simply false. It has been done by both sides. We say Harris saying she wouldn\u2019t accept a vax that was developed by trump pre election. Covid is a political thing, not a public health matter. It has become a point of morals for many. There are ample amounts of people who are not against vaccines but are against mandates like Biden is pushing right now. It is seen a mater of if there is no push back here then when?","human_ref_B":"Science does not answer moral or political philosophy questions.  It is a political issue if the state is involved.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2996.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj3m2g5","c_root_id_B":"hj3e3ld","created_at_utc_A":1635907678,"created_at_utc_B":1635904266,"score_A":14,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Sounds like you really didn\u2019t think this through fully. At some point we can\u2019t just court marshal everyone and their mother. If there is big enough pushback it simply can\u2019t be done. That said I don\u2019t think we are to that point and yes I understand that the military is a special section of the population. That said covid is not remotely a life threatening condition for anyone active duty. We are talking people who are young and very healthy. Covid simply doesn\u2019t effect people in that group really. Sure people 60 years old have something to worry about but that simply isn\u2019t who we send to war. You are saying people should be having their lives fucked for not caring about getting sick for two days. Military members are not cheap to train an flushing that much money down the drain isn\u2019t a wise choice. A carrot is far better than the rod when trying to convince people. Attitudes such as this where you claim this against mandates are evil it a large catalyst to push people away from it. It is counter productive.   Further you say the right has politicized the issue. That is simply false. It has been done by both sides. We say Harris saying she wouldn\u2019t accept a vax that was developed by trump pre election. Covid is a political thing, not a public health matter. It has become a point of morals for many. There are ample amounts of people who are not against vaccines but are against mandates like Biden is pushing right now. It is seen a mater of if there is no push back here then when?","human_ref_B":"Impossible. Period. There are going to be thousands. We don\u2019t have the time or resources to court-martial all of them. Or even 10% of them. Paperwork and discharge less than honorably will be what happens. I predict less than 50 total courts-martial across the DoD.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3412.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj3gy80","c_root_id_B":"hj3m2g5","created_at_utc_A":1635905466,"created_at_utc_B":1635907678,"score_A":6,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"A court-martial is way too extreme and way too costly, plus it could backfire. I mean, it's a trial and all and even in a military trial, the conclusion ain't foregone. Extra duty until they comply with the order would suffice, I think. Eventually. Extra duty sucks.","human_ref_B":"Sounds like you really didn\u2019t think this through fully. At some point we can\u2019t just court marshal everyone and their mother. If there is big enough pushback it simply can\u2019t be done. That said I don\u2019t think we are to that point and yes I understand that the military is a special section of the population. That said covid is not remotely a life threatening condition for anyone active duty. We are talking people who are young and very healthy. Covid simply doesn\u2019t effect people in that group really. Sure people 60 years old have something to worry about but that simply isn\u2019t who we send to war. You are saying people should be having their lives fucked for not caring about getting sick for two days. Military members are not cheap to train an flushing that much money down the drain isn\u2019t a wise choice. A carrot is far better than the rod when trying to convince people. Attitudes such as this where you claim this against mandates are evil it a large catalyst to push people away from it. It is counter productive.   Further you say the right has politicized the issue. That is simply false. It has been done by both sides. We say Harris saying she wouldn\u2019t accept a vax that was developed by trump pre election. Covid is a political thing, not a public health matter. It has become a point of morals for many. There are ample amounts of people who are not against vaccines but are against mandates like Biden is pushing right now. It is seen a mater of if there is no push back here then when?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2212.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj3m2g5","c_root_id_B":"hj3jb9e","created_at_utc_A":1635907678,"created_at_utc_B":1635906493,"score_A":14,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Sounds like you really didn\u2019t think this through fully. At some point we can\u2019t just court marshal everyone and their mother. If there is big enough pushback it simply can\u2019t be done. That said I don\u2019t think we are to that point and yes I understand that the military is a special section of the population. That said covid is not remotely a life threatening condition for anyone active duty. We are talking people who are young and very healthy. Covid simply doesn\u2019t effect people in that group really. Sure people 60 years old have something to worry about but that simply isn\u2019t who we send to war. You are saying people should be having their lives fucked for not caring about getting sick for two days. Military members are not cheap to train an flushing that much money down the drain isn\u2019t a wise choice. A carrot is far better than the rod when trying to convince people. Attitudes such as this where you claim this against mandates are evil it a large catalyst to push people away from it. It is counter productive.   Further you say the right has politicized the issue. That is simply false. It has been done by both sides. We say Harris saying she wouldn\u2019t accept a vax that was developed by trump pre election. Covid is a political thing, not a public health matter. It has become a point of morals for many. There are ample amounts of people who are not against vaccines but are against mandates like Biden is pushing right now. It is seen a mater of if there is no push back here then when?","human_ref_B":"Court Martial isn\u2019t necessary. Not that it\u2019s costly, but because in and of itself it isn\u2019t justified in use unless the Service Member calls for it during Nonjudicial Punishment, or Art. 15 hearing.  UCMJ Art. 92 suffices on all charges, regardless.  Anti-Vaxxers are an anomaly; by themselves afraid, misinformed or otherwise conspiratorial by nature to believe anything whichever talking heads say as long as it aligns with their beliefs and justifies their anxiety and fear.  Another aspect. We have a complete VOLUNTARY military service: You\u2019re willing to burn folks who\u2019ve been in service for years, accumulated other vaccines, training and specialties, on a singular notion that THIS single instance alone makes them unfit for duty?   >Master Sergeant Dean racked up two divorces, five DUI\u2019s, stole from the DFAC and can\u2019t be bothered to help his troops, but he still gets to stay in because he got his vaccine.  This exact system of punishment or retribution is flawed, and deserves scrutiny. Those who serve honorably shouldn\u2019t be punished.  Release them from service and don\u2019t punish them or their families, their RE-Code on their DD-214 and Service Record will explain the rest.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1185.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj3f3q9","c_root_id_B":"hj3hpvp","created_at_utc_A":1635904682,"created_at_utc_B":1635905798,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Science does not answer moral or political philosophy questions.  It is a political issue if the state is involved.","human_ref_B":"1. Both wings have politicized the vaccine, not just the right. 2. The claim that \"science shows it's safe\" ignores the studies that show heart damage in young men and uterine lining damage in young women. Yes, these side effects are rare, but so is death in young people from covid; so are these side effects really worth the risk for young people who have little-to-no chance of dying from covid to begin with? Asking this question is not anti-science. To not be allowed to ask this question is what is anti-science. 3. While I agree that is the duty of military members to obey orders, they also have a duty to disobey orders that are damaging to their overall mission. We saw in WW2 what damage can be done when soldiers obey orders unquestioningly. For comparison: all US military members are brought up to date on their MMR (Measles Mumps Rubella) vaccines when they join up and they do not have a choice in the matter. I agree with this. These diseases are dangerous and damaging. The same cannot be said for Covid-19. The chances of a young healthy person dying of covid-19 is literally a few tenths of a percent. Young healthy people make up the large majority of military personnel. There is literally no argument that can be made that covid places the readiness and safety of the military in jeopardy; and therefore no arguement that can be made that to disobey the order to vaccinate places fellow soliders at risk.  Covid-19 vaccine mandates are about compliance, and nothing more. You need to ask yourself why you feel so strongly about young, healthy people at virtually no risk to covid getting a vaccine with no long term studies to prove it's efficacy and safety. You might just be a facist....","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1116.0,"score_ratio":1.625}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj3e3ld","c_root_id_B":"hj3hpvp","created_at_utc_A":1635904266,"created_at_utc_B":1635905798,"score_A":9,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Impossible. Period. There are going to be thousands. We don\u2019t have the time or resources to court-martial all of them. Or even 10% of them. Paperwork and discharge less than honorably will be what happens. I predict less than 50 total courts-martial across the DoD.","human_ref_B":"1. Both wings have politicized the vaccine, not just the right. 2. The claim that \"science shows it's safe\" ignores the studies that show heart damage in young men and uterine lining damage in young women. Yes, these side effects are rare, but so is death in young people from covid; so are these side effects really worth the risk for young people who have little-to-no chance of dying from covid to begin with? Asking this question is not anti-science. To not be allowed to ask this question is what is anti-science. 3. While I agree that is the duty of military members to obey orders, they also have a duty to disobey orders that are damaging to their overall mission. We saw in WW2 what damage can be done when soldiers obey orders unquestioningly. For comparison: all US military members are brought up to date on their MMR (Measles Mumps Rubella) vaccines when they join up and they do not have a choice in the matter. I agree with this. These diseases are dangerous and damaging. The same cannot be said for Covid-19. The chances of a young healthy person dying of covid-19 is literally a few tenths of a percent. Young healthy people make up the large majority of military personnel. There is literally no argument that can be made that covid places the readiness and safety of the military in jeopardy; and therefore no arguement that can be made that to disobey the order to vaccinate places fellow soliders at risk.  Covid-19 vaccine mandates are about compliance, and nothing more. You need to ask yourself why you feel so strongly about young, healthy people at virtually no risk to covid getting a vaccine with no long term studies to prove it's efficacy and safety. You might just be a facist....","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1532.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj3gy80","c_root_id_B":"hj3hpvp","created_at_utc_A":1635905466,"created_at_utc_B":1635905798,"score_A":6,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"A court-martial is way too extreme and way too costly, plus it could backfire. I mean, it's a trial and all and even in a military trial, the conclusion ain't foregone. Extra duty until they comply with the order would suffice, I think. Eventually. Extra duty sucks.","human_ref_B":"1. Both wings have politicized the vaccine, not just the right. 2. The claim that \"science shows it's safe\" ignores the studies that show heart damage in young men and uterine lining damage in young women. Yes, these side effects are rare, but so is death in young people from covid; so are these side effects really worth the risk for young people who have little-to-no chance of dying from covid to begin with? Asking this question is not anti-science. To not be allowed to ask this question is what is anti-science. 3. While I agree that is the duty of military members to obey orders, they also have a duty to disobey orders that are damaging to their overall mission. We saw in WW2 what damage can be done when soldiers obey orders unquestioningly. For comparison: all US military members are brought up to date on their MMR (Measles Mumps Rubella) vaccines when they join up and they do not have a choice in the matter. I agree with this. These diseases are dangerous and damaging. The same cannot be said for Covid-19. The chances of a young healthy person dying of covid-19 is literally a few tenths of a percent. Young healthy people make up the large majority of military personnel. There is literally no argument that can be made that covid places the readiness and safety of the military in jeopardy; and therefore no arguement that can be made that to disobey the order to vaccinate places fellow soliders at risk.  Covid-19 vaccine mandates are about compliance, and nothing more. You need to ask yourself why you feel so strongly about young, healthy people at virtually no risk to covid getting a vaccine with no long term studies to prove it's efficacy and safety. You might just be a facist....","labels":0,"seconds_difference":332.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj4aamm","c_root_id_B":"hj3gy80","created_at_utc_A":1635921571,"created_at_utc_B":1635905466,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I had to think about this one for a minute, but I think I'd be against that.  At first I thought it would be a cost-benefit kind of thing once you throw compassion and such out the window and think like sociopathic military brass putting lethality and operational readiness above the health of the individual. Which would lead to a conclusion something like, if projected casualties caused by the unvaccinated exceeded the number of unvaccinated, then kick them out. If not, let it ride.  &#x200B;  >be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000?  To use OP's numbers, if the unvaccinated were projected -by professional pentagon analysts with the best data possible- to cause, say, 14,300 casualties (made up number) then you'd court marshal 12 or 12,000 to save 14,300, but you'd be a fool to lose 120,000 troops to save 14,300 given the mindset we're assuming.  But once you get that far it seems unrealistic to expect X unvaccinated people to create > X casualties. That's literally expecting a greater than 100% casualty rate. While COVID-19 is definitely no joke, it's also definitely not that thank god.","human_ref_B":"A court-martial is way too extreme and way too costly, plus it could backfire. I mean, it's a trial and all and even in a military trial, the conclusion ain't foregone. Extra duty until they comply with the order would suffice, I think. Eventually. Extra duty sucks.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16105.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj4aamm","c_root_id_B":"hj45vkj","created_at_utc_A":1635921571,"created_at_utc_B":1635918252,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I had to think about this one for a minute, but I think I'd be against that.  At first I thought it would be a cost-benefit kind of thing once you throw compassion and such out the window and think like sociopathic military brass putting lethality and operational readiness above the health of the individual. Which would lead to a conclusion something like, if projected casualties caused by the unvaccinated exceeded the number of unvaccinated, then kick them out. If not, let it ride.  &#x200B;  >be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000?  To use OP's numbers, if the unvaccinated were projected -by professional pentagon analysts with the best data possible- to cause, say, 14,300 casualties (made up number) then you'd court marshal 12 or 12,000 to save 14,300, but you'd be a fool to lose 120,000 troops to save 14,300 given the mindset we're assuming.  But once you get that far it seems unrealistic to expect X unvaccinated people to create > X casualties. That's literally expecting a greater than 100% casualty rate. While COVID-19 is definitely no joke, it's also definitely not that thank god.","human_ref_B":"Army Commander here. The Army's official policy (NOT according to the media) is that Soldiers will not be *forced* to get the vaccine, but they will be required to in order to remain in the military unless they have an approved exemption. The only exemptions authorized are medical or religious, and must be approved by a General Officer (O-7 or higher).  Active Duty Soldiers have until December 30th to be fully vaccinated, and Reserve\/National Guard Soldiers have until June 30th. If a Soldier is not fully vaccinated by that time, their command will initiate separation packets, and the Soldier will be discharged.  It is NOT an offense a Soldier will be court martialed for. Rather, it's more akin to a Soldier that refuses to go to their dental appointments or a Soldier that repeatedly fails their physical fitness tests. They will be separated for not meeting the Army's standards, but not for any moral, legal, or policy infraction they are committing.  I can't speak to the Navy, Chair Force, or Coast Guard, but I would assume they have equivalent policies. Hope this helps!  Edit: Worth noting, out of my unit of 160 Soldiers, only 4 protested getting the vaccine. Of those, 3 eventually came around and scheduled their first dose, and the other 1 is working with the Chaplain to submit a religious exemption.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3319.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj4aamm","c_root_id_B":"hj3jb9e","created_at_utc_A":1635921571,"created_at_utc_B":1635906493,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I had to think about this one for a minute, but I think I'd be against that.  At first I thought it would be a cost-benefit kind of thing once you throw compassion and such out the window and think like sociopathic military brass putting lethality and operational readiness above the health of the individual. Which would lead to a conclusion something like, if projected casualties caused by the unvaccinated exceeded the number of unvaccinated, then kick them out. If not, let it ride.  &#x200B;  >be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000?  To use OP's numbers, if the unvaccinated were projected -by professional pentagon analysts with the best data possible- to cause, say, 14,300 casualties (made up number) then you'd court marshal 12 or 12,000 to save 14,300, but you'd be a fool to lose 120,000 troops to save 14,300 given the mindset we're assuming.  But once you get that far it seems unrealistic to expect X unvaccinated people to create > X casualties. That's literally expecting a greater than 100% casualty rate. While COVID-19 is definitely no joke, it's also definitely not that thank god.","human_ref_B":"Court Martial isn\u2019t necessary. Not that it\u2019s costly, but because in and of itself it isn\u2019t justified in use unless the Service Member calls for it during Nonjudicial Punishment, or Art. 15 hearing.  UCMJ Art. 92 suffices on all charges, regardless.  Anti-Vaxxers are an anomaly; by themselves afraid, misinformed or otherwise conspiratorial by nature to believe anything whichever talking heads say as long as it aligns with their beliefs and justifies their anxiety and fear.  Another aspect. We have a complete VOLUNTARY military service: You\u2019re willing to burn folks who\u2019ve been in service for years, accumulated other vaccines, training and specialties, on a singular notion that THIS single instance alone makes them unfit for duty?   >Master Sergeant Dean racked up two divorces, five DUI\u2019s, stole from the DFAC and can\u2019t be bothered to help his troops, but he still gets to stay in because he got his vaccine.  This exact system of punishment or retribution is flawed, and deserves scrutiny. Those who serve honorably shouldn\u2019t be punished.  Release them from service and don\u2019t punish them or their families, their RE-Code on their DD-214 and Service Record will explain the rest.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15078.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj4aamm","c_root_id_B":"hj45efm","created_at_utc_A":1635921571,"created_at_utc_B":1635917924,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I had to think about this one for a minute, but I think I'd be against that.  At first I thought it would be a cost-benefit kind of thing once you throw compassion and such out the window and think like sociopathic military brass putting lethality and operational readiness above the health of the individual. Which would lead to a conclusion something like, if projected casualties caused by the unvaccinated exceeded the number of unvaccinated, then kick them out. If not, let it ride.  &#x200B;  >be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000?  To use OP's numbers, if the unvaccinated were projected -by professional pentagon analysts with the best data possible- to cause, say, 14,300 casualties (made up number) then you'd court marshal 12 or 12,000 to save 14,300, but you'd be a fool to lose 120,000 troops to save 14,300 given the mindset we're assuming.  But once you get that far it seems unrealistic to expect X unvaccinated people to create > X casualties. That's literally expecting a greater than 100% casualty rate. While COVID-19 is definitely no joke, it's also definitely not that thank god.","human_ref_B":".There have been about 50,000 deaths attributed to Covid vaccines worldwide.  US data has been easily made  readable at https:\/\/openvaers.com\/covid-data\/mortality  Don't get me wrong, the vaccines have saved more lives than they've killed, but there is a significant non zero risk.  If someone is educated about their risk - or  maybe is sure they've had Covid - I am hesitant about removing bodily autonomy, especially in young military who have little risk of death from Covid anyway.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3647.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj3jb9e","c_root_id_B":"hj45vkj","created_at_utc_A":1635906493,"created_at_utc_B":1635918252,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Court Martial isn\u2019t necessary. Not that it\u2019s costly, but because in and of itself it isn\u2019t justified in use unless the Service Member calls for it during Nonjudicial Punishment, or Art. 15 hearing.  UCMJ Art. 92 suffices on all charges, regardless.  Anti-Vaxxers are an anomaly; by themselves afraid, misinformed or otherwise conspiratorial by nature to believe anything whichever talking heads say as long as it aligns with their beliefs and justifies their anxiety and fear.  Another aspect. We have a complete VOLUNTARY military service: You\u2019re willing to burn folks who\u2019ve been in service for years, accumulated other vaccines, training and specialties, on a singular notion that THIS single instance alone makes them unfit for duty?   >Master Sergeant Dean racked up two divorces, five DUI\u2019s, stole from the DFAC and can\u2019t be bothered to help his troops, but he still gets to stay in because he got his vaccine.  This exact system of punishment or retribution is flawed, and deserves scrutiny. Those who serve honorably shouldn\u2019t be punished.  Release them from service and don\u2019t punish them or their families, their RE-Code on their DD-214 and Service Record will explain the rest.","human_ref_B":"Army Commander here. The Army's official policy (NOT according to the media) is that Soldiers will not be *forced* to get the vaccine, but they will be required to in order to remain in the military unless they have an approved exemption. The only exemptions authorized are medical or religious, and must be approved by a General Officer (O-7 or higher).  Active Duty Soldiers have until December 30th to be fully vaccinated, and Reserve\/National Guard Soldiers have until June 30th. If a Soldier is not fully vaccinated by that time, their command will initiate separation packets, and the Soldier will be discharged.  It is NOT an offense a Soldier will be court martialed for. Rather, it's more akin to a Soldier that refuses to go to their dental appointments or a Soldier that repeatedly fails their physical fitness tests. They will be separated for not meeting the Army's standards, but not for any moral, legal, or policy infraction they are committing.  I can't speak to the Navy, Chair Force, or Coast Guard, but I would assume they have equivalent policies. Hope this helps!  Edit: Worth noting, out of my unit of 160 Soldiers, only 4 protested getting the vaccine. Of those, 3 eventually came around and scheduled their first dose, and the other 1 is working with the Chaplain to submit a religious exemption.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11759.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj45efm","c_root_id_B":"hj45vkj","created_at_utc_A":1635917924,"created_at_utc_B":1635918252,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":".There have been about 50,000 deaths attributed to Covid vaccines worldwide.  US data has been easily made  readable at https:\/\/openvaers.com\/covid-data\/mortality  Don't get me wrong, the vaccines have saved more lives than they've killed, but there is a significant non zero risk.  If someone is educated about their risk - or  maybe is sure they've had Covid - I am hesitant about removing bodily autonomy, especially in young military who have little risk of death from Covid anyway.","human_ref_B":"Army Commander here. The Army's official policy (NOT according to the media) is that Soldiers will not be *forced* to get the vaccine, but they will be required to in order to remain in the military unless they have an approved exemption. The only exemptions authorized are medical or religious, and must be approved by a General Officer (O-7 or higher).  Active Duty Soldiers have until December 30th to be fully vaccinated, and Reserve\/National Guard Soldiers have until June 30th. If a Soldier is not fully vaccinated by that time, their command will initiate separation packets, and the Soldier will be discharged.  It is NOT an offense a Soldier will be court martialed for. Rather, it's more akin to a Soldier that refuses to go to their dental appointments or a Soldier that repeatedly fails their physical fitness tests. They will be separated for not meeting the Army's standards, but not for any moral, legal, or policy infraction they are committing.  I can't speak to the Navy, Chair Force, or Coast Guard, but I would assume they have equivalent policies. Hope this helps!  Edit: Worth noting, out of my unit of 160 Soldiers, only 4 protested getting the vaccine. Of those, 3 eventually came around and scheduled their first dose, and the other 1 is working with the Chaplain to submit a religious exemption.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":328.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"qljww1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.54,"history":"CMV: I believe members of the US military who refuse the COVID19 vaccination & who don't have a legit medical exemption be court-martialed. While the right wing has politicized this, it's not a political issue. Science shows it's safe. The commanders gave an order, and that order is in place to ensure the safety and readiness of the military.  To refuse is to say that you are against keeping you, your fellow soldiers and your fellow Americans safe. Why should we not court-martial them, be they 12, 12,000 or 120,000? If they are so proud of defying  COC, let them wear it as a badge of honor on their records their whole lives. \"Compassion\" is not an answer that will change my view, anti-vaxers haveno compassion so I'm unlikely to think they deserve it.","c_root_id_A":"hj4f6dv","c_root_id_B":"hj45efm","created_at_utc_A":1635925637,"created_at_utc_B":1635917924,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"That's a loooooong and unnecessary process. As stated, kicking them out with a  general is fine. No need for all those resources tied up.","human_ref_B":".There have been about 50,000 deaths attributed to Covid vaccines worldwide.  US data has been easily made  readable at https:\/\/openvaers.com\/covid-data\/mortality  Don't get me wrong, the vaccines have saved more lives than they've killed, but there is a significant non zero risk.  If someone is educated about their risk - or  maybe is sure they've had Covid - I am hesitant about removing bodily autonomy, especially in young military who have little risk of death from Covid anyway.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7713.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"73u712","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Strict regulations of civilian automatic gun ownership will do more good than harm. I think civilian ownership of automatic guns with high capacity magazines should be strictly regulated. I know this is a highly politicized issue... but I personally don't think there is anything wrong with a stricter gun ownership regulation that can help make make mass killing more difficult for people with malicious intentions.  I think stricter regulations of automatic weapon ownership will do more good than harm.  I am not against gun ownership in general. But a civilian owning 10 automatic rifles just doesn't sit well with me. What practical purposes justifies such?  I get 2nd amendment but I feel that gun control has been such a bi-polar topic that it's either all our guns get taken away or we all run around with gazillion guns shooting at each other.   I think proper gun handling and shooting is a valuable life skill. I myself own two handguns for personal protection purposes. But I can't think of a reason to justify owning any automatic weapon myself - unless I'm in a zombie apocalypse situation.","c_root_id_A":"dnt4hnu","c_root_id_B":"dnt4ajf","created_at_utc_A":1506965176,"created_at_utc_B":1506964970,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">I think civilian ownership of automatic guns with high capacity magazines should be strictly regulated.  >I think stricter regulations of automatic weapon ownership will do more good than harm.  >I am not against gun ownership in general. But a civilian owning 10 automatic rifles just doesn't sit well with me. What practical purposes justifies such?  We already have this.  Are you not aware of how expensive and time consuming it is for a civilian to own an automatic weapon?  Please elaborate on the specifics of your beliefs.  It seems that you may be arguing from an incorrect understanding of current laws.","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure exactly what view you're holding here, because automatic weapons are strictly regulated in almost every jurisdiction.  Do you mean semi-automatic, like an AR-15? Because people get confused about this point all the time...  At which point, it becomes nearly all modern firearms...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":206.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"73u712","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Strict regulations of civilian automatic gun ownership will do more good than harm. I think civilian ownership of automatic guns with high capacity magazines should be strictly regulated. I know this is a highly politicized issue... but I personally don't think there is anything wrong with a stricter gun ownership regulation that can help make make mass killing more difficult for people with malicious intentions.  I think stricter regulations of automatic weapon ownership will do more good than harm.  I am not against gun ownership in general. But a civilian owning 10 automatic rifles just doesn't sit well with me. What practical purposes justifies such?  I get 2nd amendment but I feel that gun control has been such a bi-polar topic that it's either all our guns get taken away or we all run around with gazillion guns shooting at each other.   I think proper gun handling and shooting is a valuable life skill. I myself own two handguns for personal protection purposes. But I can't think of a reason to justify owning any automatic weapon myself - unless I'm in a zombie apocalypse situation.","c_root_id_A":"dnt4ait","c_root_id_B":"dnt4hnu","created_at_utc_A":1506964970,"created_at_utc_B":1506965176,"score_A":4,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">I personally don't think there is anything wrong with a stricter gun ownership regulation that can help make make mass killing more difficult for people with malicious intentions.  Stricter how?  >But a civilian owning 10 automatic rifles just doesn't sit well with me. What practical purposes justifies such?  Violent uprising against the government. Feral hog control. Simple entertainment. But say that's illegitimate; since when are rights defined by practical purpose?","human_ref_B":">I think civilian ownership of automatic guns with high capacity magazines should be strictly regulated.  >I think stricter regulations of automatic weapon ownership will do more good than harm.  >I am not against gun ownership in general. But a civilian owning 10 automatic rifles just doesn't sit well with me. What practical purposes justifies such?  We already have this.  Are you not aware of how expensive and time consuming it is for a civilian to own an automatic weapon?  Please elaborate on the specifics of your beliefs.  It seems that you may be arguing from an incorrect understanding of current laws.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":206.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
+{"post_id":"73u712","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Strict regulations of civilian automatic gun ownership will do more good than harm. I think civilian ownership of automatic guns with high capacity magazines should be strictly regulated. I know this is a highly politicized issue... but I personally don't think there is anything wrong with a stricter gun ownership regulation that can help make make mass killing more difficult for people with malicious intentions.  I think stricter regulations of automatic weapon ownership will do more good than harm.  I am not against gun ownership in general. But a civilian owning 10 automatic rifles just doesn't sit well with me. What practical purposes justifies such?  I get 2nd amendment but I feel that gun control has been such a bi-polar topic that it's either all our guns get taken away or we all run around with gazillion guns shooting at each other.   I think proper gun handling and shooting is a valuable life skill. I myself own two handguns for personal protection purposes. But I can't think of a reason to justify owning any automatic weapon myself - unless I'm in a zombie apocalypse situation.","c_root_id_A":"dnt4hnu","c_root_id_B":"dnt46n1","created_at_utc_A":1506965176,"created_at_utc_B":1506964856,"score_A":11,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">I think civilian ownership of automatic guns with high capacity magazines should be strictly regulated.  >I think stricter regulations of automatic weapon ownership will do more good than harm.  >I am not against gun ownership in general. But a civilian owning 10 automatic rifles just doesn't sit well with me. What practical purposes justifies such?  We already have this.  Are you not aware of how expensive and time consuming it is for a civilian to own an automatic weapon?  Please elaborate on the specifics of your beliefs.  It seems that you may be arguing from an incorrect understanding of current laws.","human_ref_B":"Actually automatic weapons are already heavily regulated in the US.  It is impossible for a private person to legally obtain a machine gun manufactured after 1986, and the pre-86 guns go for $10k and up.  Tyrannical governments killed ~262 million people in the 20th century.  The US represents ~4.5% of the world population.  .045 \u00d7 262,000,000 \/ 100 = 123,514 murders per year by tyrannical governments on average for a population the size of the US.  Considering how gun-control (or lack thereof) is statistically essentially uncorrelated with homicide rates, and there were 17,250 murders (all means) in the US in 2016, the risk assessment ought to conclude that yes, the risk of tyrannical government is well beyond sufficient to justify any (if there are any) additional risk that general firearm ownership could represent.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":320.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
+{"post_id":"73u712","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Strict regulations of civilian automatic gun ownership will do more good than harm. I think civilian ownership of automatic guns with high capacity magazines should be strictly regulated. I know this is a highly politicized issue... but I personally don't think there is anything wrong with a stricter gun ownership regulation that can help make make mass killing more difficult for people with malicious intentions.  I think stricter regulations of automatic weapon ownership will do more good than harm.  I am not against gun ownership in general. But a civilian owning 10 automatic rifles just doesn't sit well with me. What practical purposes justifies such?  I get 2nd amendment but I feel that gun control has been such a bi-polar topic that it's either all our guns get taken away or we all run around with gazillion guns shooting at each other.   I think proper gun handling and shooting is a valuable life skill. I myself own two handguns for personal protection purposes. But I can't think of a reason to justify owning any automatic weapon myself - unless I'm in a zombie apocalypse situation.","c_root_id_A":"dnt4ajf","c_root_id_B":"dnt4ait","created_at_utc_A":1506964970,"created_at_utc_B":1506964970,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'm not sure exactly what view you're holding here, because automatic weapons are strictly regulated in almost every jurisdiction.  Do you mean semi-automatic, like an AR-15? Because people get confused about this point all the time...  At which point, it becomes nearly all modern firearms...","human_ref_B":">I personally don't think there is anything wrong with a stricter gun ownership regulation that can help make make mass killing more difficult for people with malicious intentions.  Stricter how?  >But a civilian owning 10 automatic rifles just doesn't sit well with me. What practical purposes justifies such?  Violent uprising against the government. Feral hog control. Simple entertainment. But say that's illegitimate; since when are rights defined by practical purpose?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":0.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"73u712","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Strict regulations of civilian automatic gun ownership will do more good than harm. I think civilian ownership of automatic guns with high capacity magazines should be strictly regulated. I know this is a highly politicized issue... but I personally don't think there is anything wrong with a stricter gun ownership regulation that can help make make mass killing more difficult for people with malicious intentions.  I think stricter regulations of automatic weapon ownership will do more good than harm.  I am not against gun ownership in general. But a civilian owning 10 automatic rifles just doesn't sit well with me. What practical purposes justifies such?  I get 2nd amendment but I feel that gun control has been such a bi-polar topic that it's either all our guns get taken away or we all run around with gazillion guns shooting at each other.   I think proper gun handling and shooting is a valuable life skill. I myself own two handguns for personal protection purposes. But I can't think of a reason to justify owning any automatic weapon myself - unless I'm in a zombie apocalypse situation.","c_root_id_A":"dnt4ajf","c_root_id_B":"dnt46n1","created_at_utc_A":1506964970,"created_at_utc_B":1506964856,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I'm not sure exactly what view you're holding here, because automatic weapons are strictly regulated in almost every jurisdiction.  Do you mean semi-automatic, like an AR-15? Because people get confused about this point all the time...  At which point, it becomes nearly all modern firearms...","human_ref_B":"Actually automatic weapons are already heavily regulated in the US.  It is impossible for a private person to legally obtain a machine gun manufactured after 1986, and the pre-86 guns go for $10k and up.  Tyrannical governments killed ~262 million people in the 20th century.  The US represents ~4.5% of the world population.  .045 \u00d7 262,000,000 \/ 100 = 123,514 murders per year by tyrannical governments on average for a population the size of the US.  Considering how gun-control (or lack thereof) is statistically essentially uncorrelated with homicide rates, and there were 17,250 murders (all means) in the US in 2016, the risk assessment ought to conclude that yes, the risk of tyrannical government is well beyond sufficient to justify any (if there are any) additional risk that general firearm ownership could represent.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":114.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"fcholo","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Certain Psychedelic drugs should be legalized for use in psychotherapy and mental health treatment. Psychedelics have been considered to be helpful in mental health research for years. However, as they are illegal, there is a certain tabboo around using them for their potentially beneficial effects in the field of mental health treatment. Recently, as marijuana is being legalized all over the U.S., the illegalizations of other drugs are being called into question as well, including psychedelics like psilocibin and LSD. There have been many studies which give strong evidence to suggest that, when paired with psychotherapy, these drugs can have incredibly positive effects on mental health, opiod addiction, and many more cases of physical and mental illness. Many of these studies have been conducted just in the last few years. Therefore, I think psychedelics should be reviewed, and legalized for pharmeceutical use as a natural alternative to traditional antidepressants and other mental health drugs.","c_root_id_A":"fjauf73","c_root_id_B":"fjatir8","created_at_utc_A":1583180815,"created_at_utc_B":1583180316,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">There have been many studies which give strong evidence to suggest that, when paired with psychotherapy, these drugs can have incredibly positive effects on mental health, opiod addiction, and many more cases of physical and mental illness. Many of these studies have been conducted just in the last few years. Therefore, I think psychedelics should be reviewed, and legalized for pharmeceutical use as a natural alternative to traditional antidepressants and other mental health   First thing is that we are not talking about legalizing it for recreational use in this case. Arguments about legalizing marijuana aren't really relevant, since we are looking at psychedelics for medical use, ie psychiatry. So the questions that we have to ask are does the substance in question produce effective results, are the side effects safe, and how does it compare to currently available alternatives?   From a medical standpoint, from what I know they don't hold up very well. This cannot be determined universally for all substances however. Each substance, and proposed use, would have to be approved. For example you can't just approve psyclobin. You would have to approve it for use as a treatment for schizophrenia, separately then when you would approve it for use in depression for example.   Let's examine LSD as a potential for approval. Off the top of my head I know that clinical trials for the study of LSD as a treatment for migraines are occuring. Let's assume that those clinical trials are successful and prove it works. That doesn't mean it should necessarily be approved for use.  So we've proved  its efficacy at reducing migraines. Let's take a look at the side effects.  Side effects can include anxiety, delusions, and psychosis. It also obviously  includes visual hallucinations.  It is relatively long lasting once ingested. Unfortunately you also build a tolerance to it over time. It also isn't shelf-stable as it degrades when exposed to UV light.  Severe, life threatening side effects associated with overdose include  hyperthermia and Rhabomyolosis, ie rapid breakdown of skeletal muscle. The severe side effects look like they are rare however.    Looking at this from the perspective of treating migraines, it isn't a very good medication. If you were a construction worker operating heavy machinery, this wouldn't allow you to get rid of your migraine and go back to work.  The hallucinations  impair you from driving safely and going about your day normally. Combine that with the anxiety, delusions, and tolerance you develop, it's a really crappy medication. Not to mention the fact it degrades when exposed to light, not ideal for migraines as you will only use it occasionally, likely resulting in one perscription not needing to be refilled often, and leaving it sitting in a medicine cabinet for a long time   Compare it to an anticonvulsant like topiramate, which is also used to treat neuropathic pain like migraines. It has a moderate sedating effect and interferes with a lot of other medications, but it allows you to go about your day with no side effects that would render you unable to drive a car for example.   If I were on the FDA committee evaluating LSD for use as a migraine medication, I would likely not approve it. Its side effects, like  visual hallucinations, anxiety, delusions, and more serious things like hyperthermia give it a rather severe side effect profile. When I compare it to the alternatives, like topiramate, LSD isn't very effective, as the side effects from other medications are much less impairing.  In other words, for use in treating migraines LSD is not worth approving. At most, I would mandate it as a treatment of last resort for individuals who have migraines that have not responded normal medication.  Each psychedelic and its proposed use will have to be studied, and and appproved seperately. Just because something can treat a condition, doesn't necessarily mean it should receive approval, as I hope I have demonstrated with the LSD example here.","human_ref_B":"**You don't need to legalize a drug to use it medically**. You just need to submit the evidence to the FDA, and they will approve it as a prescription drug.  For example, opioids are illegal, but they are still widely used in medicine. Also, cannabis (Marinol) was approved by the FDA for medical use back in 1985, long before it was legalized.  If you legalize psychedelics for recreational use, you will actually *slow down* pharmaceutical research. This is due to patent laws. When a pharmaceutical company invents a drug, they get a patent which lasts 20 years. This gives them a legal monopoly - exclusive rights to sell the drug for 20 years. This system is necessary to recoup the costs of R&D (clinical trials cost several billions).  If you legalize psychedelics for recreational use, you can't enforce that monopoly. Anyone can produce the drugs. As a result, the pharmaceutical industry will be less interested in researching them. No monopoly, no incentive to do research.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":499.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"68l3y1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Universal basic income will, in the long term, entrench inequality When the  subject of a universal basic income (UBI) comes up, people often give the same arguments: it will reduce poverty; it will make welfare more efficient by simplifying administration; and it will make labour fairer by providing an alternative to either starving or getting trapped in a cycle of low-paid exploitative jobs.  Critics tend to say that UBI will make people lazy by removing the incentive to work, that it's useless because companies will simply pass on any loss in profits to consumers, or that the money just doesn't exist for it.  Personally, I think that UBI would probably be fairly effective at accomplishing its aims, and that while it might disrupt our society significantly we would adapt. I think the resulting society might even be better for the poorest. Feel free to challenge this, but it's not really my main argument.  I'm concerned that if UBI is implemented, it would, in the long term, entrench inequality. Here are my assumptions:  1. The biggest inequality is between those that earn money through capital and those that earn money by wages. The majority of people will never earn enough money through a salary to rival those who own lots of capital. UBI wouldn't change this, because the gap to be closed is orders of magnitude too large. 3. UBI would, presumably, be largely paid for by the rich, but won't be so damaging to accumulated wealth that the inequality between labour and capital reduces significantly. If UBI cost enough to do this, I don't see how it could be sustainable once those fortunes are exhausted. At that point, society would be forcibly redistributing capital, which is a lot further than most people are willing to go. 2. Income from UBI would largely be spent on the same things most people's salary already goes towards: rent (or a mortgage), food, and so on. Either UBI makes a big difference to a person, in which case it will likely go towards essentials, or it's just an extra supplement on top of a satisfactory salary---nice to have, but not going to make a person rich.  So inequality remains, albeit hopefully with the reduction or disappearance of abject poverty. The rich continue to get richer because people still need to pay them for food and rent and so on, and the poor are slightly less poor. People are generally more comfortable, so the risk of revolution lowers and politicians are placed under less pressure to further reduce inequality. Inequality between capital and labour is already higher than it was on the eve of WWI, and there is no reason to think that it will reduce or even level off without any external factors.  I imagine that it's obvious from the question that I'm no economist, so please keep your answers accessible for a layperson. _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dgzahe1","c_root_id_B":"dgzf4td","created_at_utc_A":1493634274,"created_at_utc_B":1493644676,"score_A":9,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I'm unconvinced by the idea that abject poverty is necessary right up until inequality can be eliminated, which seems to follow from your position.  UBI lowers the risk of revolution in two senses - you note that it may reduce desperation, and thus the risk of a revolution happening, but on the other hand it means that *engaging* politically (even, but not exclusively, to the point of full-on revolution) is less something that only the financially comfortable can *afford*.","human_ref_B":"Inequality indeed hinges on the proportion of entrepreneurs to salaried workers.  So, given that UBI is succesfully implemented, wouldn't this open up time and possibility for previous wage workers to become entrepreneurs?  I've lived on a minimum wage: you simply do not have the time, or the stamina, or the money to work on your own ideas, to self-actualize something new and exciting.  Once UBI opens that up, all these wage workers will suddenly find the opportunity to work on their own ideas.  Furthermore, the risk of failing in an undertaking lowers drastically: you always have something to fall back on, so why not go for it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10402.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444}
+{"post_id":"68l3y1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Universal basic income will, in the long term, entrench inequality When the  subject of a universal basic income (UBI) comes up, people often give the same arguments: it will reduce poverty; it will make welfare more efficient by simplifying administration; and it will make labour fairer by providing an alternative to either starving or getting trapped in a cycle of low-paid exploitative jobs.  Critics tend to say that UBI will make people lazy by removing the incentive to work, that it's useless because companies will simply pass on any loss in profits to consumers, or that the money just doesn't exist for it.  Personally, I think that UBI would probably be fairly effective at accomplishing its aims, and that while it might disrupt our society significantly we would adapt. I think the resulting society might even be better for the poorest. Feel free to challenge this, but it's not really my main argument.  I'm concerned that if UBI is implemented, it would, in the long term, entrench inequality. Here are my assumptions:  1. The biggest inequality is between those that earn money through capital and those that earn money by wages. The majority of people will never earn enough money through a salary to rival those who own lots of capital. UBI wouldn't change this, because the gap to be closed is orders of magnitude too large. 3. UBI would, presumably, be largely paid for by the rich, but won't be so damaging to accumulated wealth that the inequality between labour and capital reduces significantly. If UBI cost enough to do this, I don't see how it could be sustainable once those fortunes are exhausted. At that point, society would be forcibly redistributing capital, which is a lot further than most people are willing to go. 2. Income from UBI would largely be spent on the same things most people's salary already goes towards: rent (or a mortgage), food, and so on. Either UBI makes a big difference to a person, in which case it will likely go towards essentials, or it's just an extra supplement on top of a satisfactory salary---nice to have, but not going to make a person rich.  So inequality remains, albeit hopefully with the reduction or disappearance of abject poverty. The rich continue to get richer because people still need to pay them for food and rent and so on, and the poor are slightly less poor. People are generally more comfortable, so the risk of revolution lowers and politicians are placed under less pressure to further reduce inequality. Inequality between capital and labour is already higher than it was on the eve of WWI, and there is no reason to think that it will reduce or even level off without any external factors.  I imagine that it's obvious from the question that I'm no economist, so please keep your answers accessible for a layperson. _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dgznxis","c_root_id_B":"dgzldu3","created_at_utc_A":1493656263,"created_at_utc_B":1493653223,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A UBI would ideally be set up such that it increases over time as more and more production becomes automated. This gradually closes the gap between the upper and lower classes until eventually all (or most) work is automated and there is (little or) no gap.  If the UBI is set to be just barely enough and never increase, then yes it would just be a slightly less bad version of mixed-market capitalism where the gap increases over time.","human_ref_B":"Here is the general concept for how a UBI will increase the number of wealthy individuals:  At this point a fair bit of economic demand is locked away because some people are destitute. They would spend more money than they have, but simply don't have access to the education, connections, or resources required to contribute at the higher level that they would prefer. So, if you give everyone a reasonable sum of money then they will mostly spend it. You can see a rather similar effect with tax refunds and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Extra money from the government is identical to extra money from wages which means that people can buy more and change the mix of what they buy to include things that they couldn't before which opens up massive opportunities to capitalists.  But that brings us to the belief that the money is going to go to essentials, and it probably will. But having dedicated money going to essentials goes a long way to reducing the risk of entrepreneurship. Basically, by increasing demand and ensuring that someone's food and shelter are covered you're creating a situation where people can start businesses far more easily than they could under the current ways of doing things. After all, you're far more likely to find success in starting a business when everyone around you has at least some spare cash and you don't have to stop when your personal savings runs out which means that you have a longer period of time to learn how to run a business before you have to quit.  Depending upon others to make you wealthy isn't how it has ever worked. If you're going to be rich you need to make yourself rich by creating something new. A UBI, in theory at least, would go a long way to making it easier to create that new thing. Or, to put it into your terms, more liquidity in the market reduces the cost of capital, making it far easier for the average person supplement a salary with rent or to transition to making the lion's share of their income from capital.  I, personally, prefer a Negative Income Tax as it only impacts those who \"need\" supplemental income, has a built-in funding mechanism, and has an infinitely smaller funding requirement. I strongly suspect that this sort of plan would function much better than the relatively blunt UBI.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3040.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"68l3y1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Universal basic income will, in the long term, entrench inequality When the  subject of a universal basic income (UBI) comes up, people often give the same arguments: it will reduce poverty; it will make welfare more efficient by simplifying administration; and it will make labour fairer by providing an alternative to either starving or getting trapped in a cycle of low-paid exploitative jobs.  Critics tend to say that UBI will make people lazy by removing the incentive to work, that it's useless because companies will simply pass on any loss in profits to consumers, or that the money just doesn't exist for it.  Personally, I think that UBI would probably be fairly effective at accomplishing its aims, and that while it might disrupt our society significantly we would adapt. I think the resulting society might even be better for the poorest. Feel free to challenge this, but it's not really my main argument.  I'm concerned that if UBI is implemented, it would, in the long term, entrench inequality. Here are my assumptions:  1. The biggest inequality is between those that earn money through capital and those that earn money by wages. The majority of people will never earn enough money through a salary to rival those who own lots of capital. UBI wouldn't change this, because the gap to be closed is orders of magnitude too large. 3. UBI would, presumably, be largely paid for by the rich, but won't be so damaging to accumulated wealth that the inequality between labour and capital reduces significantly. If UBI cost enough to do this, I don't see how it could be sustainable once those fortunes are exhausted. At that point, society would be forcibly redistributing capital, which is a lot further than most people are willing to go. 2. Income from UBI would largely be spent on the same things most people's salary already goes towards: rent (or a mortgage), food, and so on. Either UBI makes a big difference to a person, in which case it will likely go towards essentials, or it's just an extra supplement on top of a satisfactory salary---nice to have, but not going to make a person rich.  So inequality remains, albeit hopefully with the reduction or disappearance of abject poverty. The rich continue to get richer because people still need to pay them for food and rent and so on, and the poor are slightly less poor. People are generally more comfortable, so the risk of revolution lowers and politicians are placed under less pressure to further reduce inequality. Inequality between capital and labour is already higher than it was on the eve of WWI, and there is no reason to think that it will reduce or even level off without any external factors.  I imagine that it's obvious from the question that I'm no economist, so please keep your answers accessible for a layperson. _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dgzod6u","c_root_id_B":"dgzldu3","created_at_utc_A":1493656773,"created_at_utc_B":1493653223,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't understand why so many people are so focused on inequality.  We should be focused on human capital, in other words quality of living.  I'm talking about things like education, healthcare, social mobility.  The gap between low and high income wages doesn't make much of a difference when living life in the low is pretty damn good.  Does income inequality have a direct correlation with extreme poverty?  Absolutely not.  In fact, while the income inequality gap has widened, since 1981, extreme poverty around the world has decreased by 50%.  Think about that.  50%!  Doesn't a fact like that discredit the notion that \"the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer?\"  Absolutely.  We are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  The real problem is, how do you continue this trend?  How do you make life better for everyone?  How do we make the low end of the spectrum even better?  Can UBI solve that?  I don't know.  That's a highly debatable topic.  There are just as many economists that support the idea as those that don't.  Although UBI may address the issue of income inequality, focusing on that issue will do little to to fight poverty, hunger, or basic living needs for people as a whole.  Instead we should invest in human capital, making people more productive, giving them better lives through healthcare, education, and the opportunity for social mobility.","human_ref_B":"Here is the general concept for how a UBI will increase the number of wealthy individuals:  At this point a fair bit of economic demand is locked away because some people are destitute. They would spend more money than they have, but simply don't have access to the education, connections, or resources required to contribute at the higher level that they would prefer. So, if you give everyone a reasonable sum of money then they will mostly spend it. You can see a rather similar effect with tax refunds and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Extra money from the government is identical to extra money from wages which means that people can buy more and change the mix of what they buy to include things that they couldn't before which opens up massive opportunities to capitalists.  But that brings us to the belief that the money is going to go to essentials, and it probably will. But having dedicated money going to essentials goes a long way to reducing the risk of entrepreneurship. Basically, by increasing demand and ensuring that someone's food and shelter are covered you're creating a situation where people can start businesses far more easily than they could under the current ways of doing things. After all, you're far more likely to find success in starting a business when everyone around you has at least some spare cash and you don't have to stop when your personal savings runs out which means that you have a longer period of time to learn how to run a business before you have to quit.  Depending upon others to make you wealthy isn't how it has ever worked. If you're going to be rich you need to make yourself rich by creating something new. A UBI, in theory at least, would go a long way to making it easier to create that new thing. Or, to put it into your terms, more liquidity in the market reduces the cost of capital, making it far easier for the average person supplement a salary with rent or to transition to making the lion's share of their income from capital.  I, personally, prefer a Negative Income Tax as it only impacts those who \"need\" supplemental income, has a built-in funding mechanism, and has an infinitely smaller funding requirement. I strongly suspect that this sort of plan would function much better than the relatively blunt UBI.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3550.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"68l3y1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Universal basic income will, in the long term, entrench inequality When the  subject of a universal basic income (UBI) comes up, people often give the same arguments: it will reduce poverty; it will make welfare more efficient by simplifying administration; and it will make labour fairer by providing an alternative to either starving or getting trapped in a cycle of low-paid exploitative jobs.  Critics tend to say that UBI will make people lazy by removing the incentive to work, that it's useless because companies will simply pass on any loss in profits to consumers, or that the money just doesn't exist for it.  Personally, I think that UBI would probably be fairly effective at accomplishing its aims, and that while it might disrupt our society significantly we would adapt. I think the resulting society might even be better for the poorest. Feel free to challenge this, but it's not really my main argument.  I'm concerned that if UBI is implemented, it would, in the long term, entrench inequality. Here are my assumptions:  1. The biggest inequality is between those that earn money through capital and those that earn money by wages. The majority of people will never earn enough money through a salary to rival those who own lots of capital. UBI wouldn't change this, because the gap to be closed is orders of magnitude too large. 3. UBI would, presumably, be largely paid for by the rich, but won't be so damaging to accumulated wealth that the inequality between labour and capital reduces significantly. If UBI cost enough to do this, I don't see how it could be sustainable once those fortunes are exhausted. At that point, society would be forcibly redistributing capital, which is a lot further than most people are willing to go. 2. Income from UBI would largely be spent on the same things most people's salary already goes towards: rent (or a mortgage), food, and so on. Either UBI makes a big difference to a person, in which case it will likely go towards essentials, or it's just an extra supplement on top of a satisfactory salary---nice to have, but not going to make a person rich.  So inequality remains, albeit hopefully with the reduction or disappearance of abject poverty. The rich continue to get richer because people still need to pay them for food and rent and so on, and the poor are slightly less poor. People are generally more comfortable, so the risk of revolution lowers and politicians are placed under less pressure to further reduce inequality. Inequality between capital and labour is already higher than it was on the eve of WWI, and there is no reason to think that it will reduce or even level off without any external factors.  I imagine that it's obvious from the question that I'm no economist, so please keep your answers accessible for a layperson. _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dgzq78n","c_root_id_B":"dgzldu3","created_at_utc_A":1493658891,"created_at_utc_B":1493653223,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'd suggest looking at the Alaska Permanent Fund. It works as a small UBI (about $1-2k per person per year) taken from a fund based on natural resources. It's been around since 1976, and Alaska has the second lowest income inequality among states (after Utah, which has some really progressive ideas about housing the homeless)","human_ref_B":"Here is the general concept for how a UBI will increase the number of wealthy individuals:  At this point a fair bit of economic demand is locked away because some people are destitute. They would spend more money than they have, but simply don't have access to the education, connections, or resources required to contribute at the higher level that they would prefer. So, if you give everyone a reasonable sum of money then they will mostly spend it. You can see a rather similar effect with tax refunds and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Extra money from the government is identical to extra money from wages which means that people can buy more and change the mix of what they buy to include things that they couldn't before which opens up massive opportunities to capitalists.  But that brings us to the belief that the money is going to go to essentials, and it probably will. But having dedicated money going to essentials goes a long way to reducing the risk of entrepreneurship. Basically, by increasing demand and ensuring that someone's food and shelter are covered you're creating a situation where people can start businesses far more easily than they could under the current ways of doing things. After all, you're far more likely to find success in starting a business when everyone around you has at least some spare cash and you don't have to stop when your personal savings runs out which means that you have a longer period of time to learn how to run a business before you have to quit.  Depending upon others to make you wealthy isn't how it has ever worked. If you're going to be rich you need to make yourself rich by creating something new. A UBI, in theory at least, would go a long way to making it easier to create that new thing. Or, to put it into your terms, more liquidity in the market reduces the cost of capital, making it far easier for the average person supplement a salary with rent or to transition to making the lion's share of their income from capital.  I, personally, prefer a Negative Income Tax as it only impacts those who \"need\" supplemental income, has a built-in funding mechanism, and has an infinitely smaller funding requirement. I strongly suspect that this sort of plan would function much better than the relatively blunt UBI.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5668.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"j6ssnu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: People with religious beliefs which conflict with a medical service they are supposed to provide, and who subsequently impose those beliefs on others who do not share them, should not be able obtain a licence to operate. Today it has been reported that a pharmacist (UK) refused emergency contraception to a customer due to her religious belief. It strikes me that this is a ridiculous situation and the person in question has a moral obligation to recuse themselves from their profession if the belief they hold conflicts with performing that service fully. Medical services are particularly important as they have direct, and potentially irrevocable, impacts on the health and wellbeing of the people who need those services. If someone feels they cannot perform those functions due to a personal faith or belief then they have no right to be in a position where they are imposing those beliefs on someone who does not share them.  For myself, I don't care what people believe so long as they keep it to themselves and don't interfere with what I choose to do within the confines of the law. If it's legal, leave me and my actions alone.","c_root_id_A":"g80eg42","c_root_id_B":"g80dtrw","created_at_utc_A":1602084592,"created_at_utc_B":1602084283,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This would have the effect of excluding a lot of otherwise qualified people (in some cases, a majority of people) from fields that are already desperately understaffed. That seems silly.","human_ref_B":"Question regarding your particular example that you provided - was the pharmacist required under any legal capacity to provide emergency contraception?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":309.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"j6ssnu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: People with religious beliefs which conflict with a medical service they are supposed to provide, and who subsequently impose those beliefs on others who do not share them, should not be able obtain a licence to operate. Today it has been reported that a pharmacist (UK) refused emergency contraception to a customer due to her religious belief. It strikes me that this is a ridiculous situation and the person in question has a moral obligation to recuse themselves from their profession if the belief they hold conflicts with performing that service fully. Medical services are particularly important as they have direct, and potentially irrevocable, impacts on the health and wellbeing of the people who need those services. If someone feels they cannot perform those functions due to a personal faith or belief then they have no right to be in a position where they are imposing those beliefs on someone who does not share them.  For myself, I don't care what people believe so long as they keep it to themselves and don't interfere with what I choose to do within the confines of the law. If it's legal, leave me and my actions alone.","c_root_id_A":"g80euh4","c_root_id_B":"g80dtrw","created_at_utc_A":1602084792,"created_at_utc_B":1602084283,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Perhaps it should be the other way around, you shouldn\u2019t use that doctor if they don\u2019t share your beliefs... And emergency contraceptives even though they are labeled such, are not a true \u201cemergency\u201d.  Doctors go through a ton of schooling, they deserve our respect for the job they do, and they\u2019re in short supply, so they are needed for actual emergencies.","human_ref_B":"Question regarding your particular example that you provided - was the pharmacist required under any legal capacity to provide emergency contraception?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":509.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"j6ssnu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: People with religious beliefs which conflict with a medical service they are supposed to provide, and who subsequently impose those beliefs on others who do not share them, should not be able obtain a licence to operate. Today it has been reported that a pharmacist (UK) refused emergency contraception to a customer due to her religious belief. It strikes me that this is a ridiculous situation and the person in question has a moral obligation to recuse themselves from their profession if the belief they hold conflicts with performing that service fully. Medical services are particularly important as they have direct, and potentially irrevocable, impacts on the health and wellbeing of the people who need those services. If someone feels they cannot perform those functions due to a personal faith or belief then they have no right to be in a position where they are imposing those beliefs on someone who does not share them.  For myself, I don't care what people believe so long as they keep it to themselves and don't interfere with what I choose to do within the confines of the law. If it's legal, leave me and my actions alone.","c_root_id_A":"g80fjmk","c_root_id_B":"g80dtrw","created_at_utc_A":1602085144,"created_at_utc_B":1602084283,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think this really rests on the impact, to the patient, of the choice the medical provider is making.  Let's imagine two scenarios.   1. A paramedic is a member of a religion that doesn't believe CPR is a moral act. When in an emergency situation requiring CPR, where that paramedic is the only first responder, a patient dies due to the paramedic's refusal to conduct CPR. 2. A pharmacist works for a large pharmacy chain and is a member of a religion that believes if you deal in breath mints, you will go to hell. She refuses point blank to touch, sell or deal with the breath mints her employer sells. When a customer wants some, a different member of staff completes the transaction.  So, these are two different situations that I think we can agree have different moral implications. On one hand, there is death on the other there is the mild inconvenience of waiting a few extra seconds for breath mints.  If the first situation, I fully agree that the paramedic should find an alternative line of work. In the second, I'm inclined to think that there is enough of the pharmacists job that they can complete well that justifies them holding that position.  So, here is the nub of it. From your OP:  >Medical services are particularly important as they have direct, and potentially irrevocable, impacts on the health and wellbeing of the people who need those services   Where a medical service has a direct impact on the health or wellbeing of someone, **and the decision of an individual not to provide that service genuinely impedes the patient from obtaining the service,** then I agree.   There are very, very many situations where the additional condition I added in **bold** does not apply. And in those situations (selling condoms for example), you could make a strong argument that the medical professional should be allowed to exercise freedom of conscience.","human_ref_B":"Question regarding your particular example that you provided - was the pharmacist required under any legal capacity to provide emergency contraception?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":861.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"j6ssnu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: People with religious beliefs which conflict with a medical service they are supposed to provide, and who subsequently impose those beliefs on others who do not share them, should not be able obtain a licence to operate. Today it has been reported that a pharmacist (UK) refused emergency contraception to a customer due to her religious belief. It strikes me that this is a ridiculous situation and the person in question has a moral obligation to recuse themselves from their profession if the belief they hold conflicts with performing that service fully. Medical services are particularly important as they have direct, and potentially irrevocable, impacts on the health and wellbeing of the people who need those services. If someone feels they cannot perform those functions due to a personal faith or belief then they have no right to be in a position where they are imposing those beliefs on someone who does not share them.  For myself, I don't care what people believe so long as they keep it to themselves and don't interfere with what I choose to do within the confines of the law. If it's legal, leave me and my actions alone.","c_root_id_A":"g80fjmk","c_root_id_B":"g80euw0","created_at_utc_A":1602085144,"created_at_utc_B":1602084798,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think this really rests on the impact, to the patient, of the choice the medical provider is making.  Let's imagine two scenarios.   1. A paramedic is a member of a religion that doesn't believe CPR is a moral act. When in an emergency situation requiring CPR, where that paramedic is the only first responder, a patient dies due to the paramedic's refusal to conduct CPR. 2. A pharmacist works for a large pharmacy chain and is a member of a religion that believes if you deal in breath mints, you will go to hell. She refuses point blank to touch, sell or deal with the breath mints her employer sells. When a customer wants some, a different member of staff completes the transaction.  So, these are two different situations that I think we can agree have different moral implications. On one hand, there is death on the other there is the mild inconvenience of waiting a few extra seconds for breath mints.  If the first situation, I fully agree that the paramedic should find an alternative line of work. In the second, I'm inclined to think that there is enough of the pharmacists job that they can complete well that justifies them holding that position.  So, here is the nub of it. From your OP:  >Medical services are particularly important as they have direct, and potentially irrevocable, impacts on the health and wellbeing of the people who need those services   Where a medical service has a direct impact on the health or wellbeing of someone, **and the decision of an individual not to provide that service genuinely impedes the patient from obtaining the service,** then I agree.   There are very, very many situations where the additional condition I added in **bold** does not apply. And in those situations (selling condoms for example), you could make a strong argument that the medical professional should be allowed to exercise freedom of conscience.","human_ref_B":"Cannot you take your last paragraph and flip it around.   The customer is free to do whatever they want, including going to another provider, as long as they stay out of my business, and stay within the confines of the law. Who is the customer to dictate what I do and do not sell? Especially if they can go down the street and buy the same product at ten other establishments.   (I get that this argument doesn't hold for medicine as a whole, emergencies exist, emergency rooms exist, etc. But when it isn't an emergency, why cannot the customer just go somewhere else. Why do I have to sell something I'm not comfortable selling, in a nonemergency? )   To give other examples - cosmetic surgery, as a doctor, they have the right whom they operate on. It's cosmetic, not an emergency. They have the right to simply refuse to do surgery on a patient, for any or no reason.   Vasectomy - there is no law preventing any male person of age from seeking a vasectomy if they want one. But at the same time, there is no law compelling a doctor to do one either. If the doctor believes the patient will one day regret it, they can simply refuse to do it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":346.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"j6ssnu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: People with religious beliefs which conflict with a medical service they are supposed to provide, and who subsequently impose those beliefs on others who do not share them, should not be able obtain a licence to operate. Today it has been reported that a pharmacist (UK) refused emergency contraception to a customer due to her religious belief. It strikes me that this is a ridiculous situation and the person in question has a moral obligation to recuse themselves from their profession if the belief they hold conflicts with performing that service fully. Medical services are particularly important as they have direct, and potentially irrevocable, impacts on the health and wellbeing of the people who need those services. If someone feels they cannot perform those functions due to a personal faith or belief then they have no right to be in a position where they are imposing those beliefs on someone who does not share them.  For myself, I don't care what people believe so long as they keep it to themselves and don't interfere with what I choose to do within the confines of the law. If it's legal, leave me and my actions alone.","c_root_id_A":"g80kft3","c_root_id_B":"g80ikcs","created_at_utc_A":1602087553,"created_at_utc_B":1602086625,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Let's use another example. It's certainly less unlikely to occur, but it isolates the principle of refusing to carry out one's profession to a scenario in which I assume that you're more sympathetic.  The US State of Texas sentenced someone to die via lethal injection, and are ready to carry out the sentence. So they go about procuring the necessary drugs to execute that person from a licensed Texas pharmacist. But the pharmacist believes that capital punishment is morally wrong and is in conflict with their religious beliefs. The pharmacist refuses to provide the drugs, despite it being in the prison's best interest because otherwise the state will execute them with less effective drugs or through a less human method (e.g. firing squad). Should this person similarly remove themselves from the pharmacy profession because their personally held beliefs are interfering with proving medicine that's in the best interest of the patient?","human_ref_B":"The situation you described is I think pretty black and white: It would be wrong to deny someone emergency medication.  But outside of emergencies like this (and in terms of CMV), there is a big \"gray\" area in terms of medicines or medical services where I think a pharmacist might be right in informing a customer reasons that they might want to take a day and think a little more about whether they want the prescription drug or not. What about doctors that prescribe opiates to anyone and everyone who comes in complaining of pain? What if the pharmacist has reason to believe that the doctor(s) have incentives to prescribe medicines that their patients may not need?  In summary, I am essentially with you on pharmacists denying access to drugs for emergency conditions (Couldn't they just say to the customer \"we're all out of stock on this\" instead?) But doctors are far from perfect and there are definitely gray areas where I think a Pharmacist may have a moral obligation to voice his\/her concern.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":928.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uil3f3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Trying to colonize Mars is pointless Putting people on Mars seems like a waste of time and resources. There could never be a sustainable settlement there, the conditions are too harsh. Trying to colonize Mars is pointless. We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.   I am not familiar with the counter-arguments which may come up here, but that's why I'm making this post, so i can learn more about the science and the thought process. It might not be too hard to change my mind!   P.S. discussion specifically about SpaceX or Elon Musk is fine, as long as it's based on substantive ideas.","c_root_id_A":"i7da1bq","c_root_id_B":"i7d8z1f","created_at_utc_A":1651712725,"created_at_utc_B":1651712266,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"People thought buying Alaska was horribly stupid until it ended up having oil. Who knows how colonizing\/being the first to colonize Mars could be advantageous in the future?","human_ref_B":"Colonizing Mars is an important step towards leaving Earth and settling elsewhere, which we must do if we don't want to eventually go extinct. Colonizing the moon has to come first, however.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":459.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uil3f3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Trying to colonize Mars is pointless Putting people on Mars seems like a waste of time and resources. There could never be a sustainable settlement there, the conditions are too harsh. Trying to colonize Mars is pointless. We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.   I am not familiar with the counter-arguments which may come up here, but that's why I'm making this post, so i can learn more about the science and the thought process. It might not be too hard to change my mind!   P.S. discussion specifically about SpaceX or Elon Musk is fine, as long as it's based on substantive ideas.","c_root_id_A":"i7db89j","c_root_id_B":"i7f4vbf","created_at_utc_A":1651713257,"created_at_utc_B":1651755401,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"History is full of things most people called impossible wastes of resources until they were done. After, they became sources of wealth undreamt of. Crossing the atlantic for a start. Aside from a few ice hopping vikings, who had mostly died in the attempt, everyone thought sailing out to the west was a waste of a good ship, even Columbus' crew plotted mutiny when they had eaten half their rations.","human_ref_B":"Colonizing another planet is vital for our species long-term survival. Let's say a meteor smashes into earth tomorrow, or Putin fires nukes, choose your adventure.   All humanity may be wiped off of earth. Sure would be nice if there some humans somewhere else. They could come back, restore the planet. Or just keep chillin on Mars.   There are low-probability but extremely high risk events in the universe. Eventually one will happen here that will kill us all like the dinosaurs. But the odds of those events happening in multiple places in a narrow time frame is virtually zero. Colonizing Mars ensures the survival of our species.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":42144.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uil3f3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Trying to colonize Mars is pointless Putting people on Mars seems like a waste of time and resources. There could never be a sustainable settlement there, the conditions are too harsh. Trying to colonize Mars is pointless. We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.   I am not familiar with the counter-arguments which may come up here, but that's why I'm making this post, so i can learn more about the science and the thought process. It might not be too hard to change my mind!   P.S. discussion specifically about SpaceX or Elon Musk is fine, as long as it's based on substantive ideas.","c_root_id_A":"i7f4vbf","c_root_id_B":"i7dfg93","created_at_utc_A":1651755401,"created_at_utc_B":1651715157,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Colonizing another planet is vital for our species long-term survival. Let's say a meteor smashes into earth tomorrow, or Putin fires nukes, choose your adventure.   All humanity may be wiped off of earth. Sure would be nice if there some humans somewhere else. They could come back, restore the planet. Or just keep chillin on Mars.   There are low-probability but extremely high risk events in the universe. Eventually one will happen here that will kill us all like the dinosaurs. But the odds of those events happening in multiple places in a narrow time frame is virtually zero. Colonizing Mars ensures the survival of our species.","human_ref_B":"This video could be fun to watch for you: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=3IT\\_rnV1LBw   I think colonizing Mars is an investment. It has 1\/3 gravity of earth so traveling, or rather sending back resources, such as expensive minerals, would be very profitable as long as producing rockets and rocket fuel there is possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":40244.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uil3f3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Trying to colonize Mars is pointless Putting people on Mars seems like a waste of time and resources. There could never be a sustainable settlement there, the conditions are too harsh. Trying to colonize Mars is pointless. We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.   I am not familiar with the counter-arguments which may come up here, but that's why I'm making this post, so i can learn more about the science and the thought process. It might not be too hard to change my mind!   P.S. discussion specifically about SpaceX or Elon Musk is fine, as long as it's based on substantive ideas.","c_root_id_A":"i7dkhhz","c_root_id_B":"i7f4vbf","created_at_utc_A":1651717468,"created_at_utc_B":1651755401,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"\"Madam, of what use is a newborn child?\"  Here's the thing: Earthrise changed the world.  Imagine the impact of being able to tell your five-year-old daughter there are people living on that red dot in the sky, looking up at the blue dot in their sky that's us? And then go inside and show her the webcam feed? I mean, Rocky Horror and A Man for All Seasons and 2001 rocked my world, but I can't even imagine what that would have done.  So if people who demonstrably know a thingertoo about hydroponics and shielding say the conditions aren't too harsh, that sustainability's an open question and the best way to get answers is to try it?  Me, I'd like to see people building a habitrail and breeding hamsters on whatever follows the ISS first, but first we gotta get the starship working and demonstrate the necessary lift capacity for the project. One step at a time.","human_ref_B":"Colonizing another planet is vital for our species long-term survival. Let's say a meteor smashes into earth tomorrow, or Putin fires nukes, choose your adventure.   All humanity may be wiped off of earth. Sure would be nice if there some humans somewhere else. They could come back, restore the planet. Or just keep chillin on Mars.   There are low-probability but extremely high risk events in the universe. Eventually one will happen here that will kill us all like the dinosaurs. But the odds of those events happening in multiple places in a narrow time frame is virtually zero. Colonizing Mars ensures the survival of our species.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":37933.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uil3f3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Trying to colonize Mars is pointless Putting people on Mars seems like a waste of time and resources. There could never be a sustainable settlement there, the conditions are too harsh. Trying to colonize Mars is pointless. We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.   I am not familiar with the counter-arguments which may come up here, but that's why I'm making this post, so i can learn more about the science and the thought process. It might not be too hard to change my mind!   P.S. discussion specifically about SpaceX or Elon Musk is fine, as long as it's based on substantive ideas.","c_root_id_A":"i7e5nsy","c_root_id_B":"i7f4vbf","created_at_utc_A":1651729267,"created_at_utc_B":1651755401,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.  Do you think similar things about all major scientific research projects, like CERN, space telescopes, major geological surveys, etc?","human_ref_B":"Colonizing another planet is vital for our species long-term survival. Let's say a meteor smashes into earth tomorrow, or Putin fires nukes, choose your adventure.   All humanity may be wiped off of earth. Sure would be nice if there some humans somewhere else. They could come back, restore the planet. Or just keep chillin on Mars.   There are low-probability but extremely high risk events in the universe. Eventually one will happen here that will kill us all like the dinosaurs. But the odds of those events happening in multiple places in a narrow time frame is virtually zero. Colonizing Mars ensures the survival of our species.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26134.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uil3f3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Trying to colonize Mars is pointless Putting people on Mars seems like a waste of time and resources. There could never be a sustainable settlement there, the conditions are too harsh. Trying to colonize Mars is pointless. We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.   I am not familiar with the counter-arguments which may come up here, but that's why I'm making this post, so i can learn more about the science and the thought process. It might not be too hard to change my mind!   P.S. discussion specifically about SpaceX or Elon Musk is fine, as long as it's based on substantive ideas.","c_root_id_A":"i7f4vbf","c_root_id_B":"i7ebhpu","created_at_utc_A":1651755401,"created_at_utc_B":1651733675,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Colonizing another planet is vital for our species long-term survival. Let's say a meteor smashes into earth tomorrow, or Putin fires nukes, choose your adventure.   All humanity may be wiped off of earth. Sure would be nice if there some humans somewhere else. They could come back, restore the planet. Or just keep chillin on Mars.   There are low-probability but extremely high risk events in the universe. Eventually one will happen here that will kill us all like the dinosaurs. But the odds of those events happening in multiple places in a narrow time frame is virtually zero. Colonizing Mars ensures the survival of our species.","human_ref_B":"Let's turn to history for inspiration. Should the English have not settled the Americas after failing to find gold? What about Australia after discovering it was mostly desert? Good things can come from the unlikeliest of places. Long-term, colonizing Mars could lead to bountiful things that are current limited human understanding and knowledge cannot foresee. Perhaps Mars will be first to achieve utopia before Earth. Used as a cheaper transport hub for launching deep-space explorations. But for our descendants to enjoy that future, we must plant the seeds today.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21726.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uil3f3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Trying to colonize Mars is pointless Putting people on Mars seems like a waste of time and resources. There could never be a sustainable settlement there, the conditions are too harsh. Trying to colonize Mars is pointless. We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.   I am not familiar with the counter-arguments which may come up here, but that's why I'm making this post, so i can learn more about the science and the thought process. It might not be too hard to change my mind!   P.S. discussion specifically about SpaceX or Elon Musk is fine, as long as it's based on substantive ideas.","c_root_id_A":"i7fwc4e","c_root_id_B":"i7db89j","created_at_utc_A":1651766955,"created_at_utc_B":1651713257,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It's literally within the physical laws of the universe to colonize Mars. It's even possible to manipulate its atmosphere, radiation levels, soil composition, introduce water & kickstart a water, nitrogen, and carbon cycle on the planet. It's eventually possible to introduce flora and fauna to the planet and allow earth-born people to walk around the Martian surface without a space suit.  Does all that sound super unrealistic? Good! It's literally not impossible, which means there will be ***TONS*** of technological improvements made when we colonize Mars. The advancements in engineering, biology, rocketry, interplanetary space infrastructure, communications, atmospheric and geological sciences, and many more fields that don't even come to mind have to, by necessity, be massive. ***But they're all possible***.  Imagine how powerful of a civilization we will be when we can change the chemical composition of an entire planet. We won't get there without doing all this work on a planet, and Mars is just the most likely candidate.","human_ref_B":"History is full of things most people called impossible wastes of resources until they were done. After, they became sources of wealth undreamt of. Crossing the atlantic for a start. Aside from a few ice hopping vikings, who had mostly died in the attempt, everyone thought sailing out to the west was a waste of a good ship, even Columbus' crew plotted mutiny when they had eaten half their rations.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":53698.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uil3f3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Trying to colonize Mars is pointless Putting people on Mars seems like a waste of time and resources. There could never be a sustainable settlement there, the conditions are too harsh. Trying to colonize Mars is pointless. We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.   I am not familiar with the counter-arguments which may come up here, but that's why I'm making this post, so i can learn more about the science and the thought process. It might not be too hard to change my mind!   P.S. discussion specifically about SpaceX or Elon Musk is fine, as long as it's based on substantive ideas.","c_root_id_A":"i7dfg93","c_root_id_B":"i7fwc4e","created_at_utc_A":1651715157,"created_at_utc_B":1651766955,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This video could be fun to watch for you: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=3IT\\_rnV1LBw   I think colonizing Mars is an investment. It has 1\/3 gravity of earth so traveling, or rather sending back resources, such as expensive minerals, would be very profitable as long as producing rockets and rocket fuel there is possible.","human_ref_B":"It's literally within the physical laws of the universe to colonize Mars. It's even possible to manipulate its atmosphere, radiation levels, soil composition, introduce water & kickstart a water, nitrogen, and carbon cycle on the planet. It's eventually possible to introduce flora and fauna to the planet and allow earth-born people to walk around the Martian surface without a space suit.  Does all that sound super unrealistic? Good! It's literally not impossible, which means there will be ***TONS*** of technological improvements made when we colonize Mars. The advancements in engineering, biology, rocketry, interplanetary space infrastructure, communications, atmospheric and geological sciences, and many more fields that don't even come to mind have to, by necessity, be massive. ***But they're all possible***.  Imagine how powerful of a civilization we will be when we can change the chemical composition of an entire planet. We won't get there without doing all this work on a planet, and Mars is just the most likely candidate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":51798.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uil3f3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Trying to colonize Mars is pointless Putting people on Mars seems like a waste of time and resources. There could never be a sustainable settlement there, the conditions are too harsh. Trying to colonize Mars is pointless. We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.   I am not familiar with the counter-arguments which may come up here, but that's why I'm making this post, so i can learn more about the science and the thought process. It might not be too hard to change my mind!   P.S. discussion specifically about SpaceX or Elon Musk is fine, as long as it's based on substantive ideas.","c_root_id_A":"i7fwc4e","c_root_id_B":"i7dkhhz","created_at_utc_A":1651766955,"created_at_utc_B":1651717468,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It's literally within the physical laws of the universe to colonize Mars. It's even possible to manipulate its atmosphere, radiation levels, soil composition, introduce water & kickstart a water, nitrogen, and carbon cycle on the planet. It's eventually possible to introduce flora and fauna to the planet and allow earth-born people to walk around the Martian surface without a space suit.  Does all that sound super unrealistic? Good! It's literally not impossible, which means there will be ***TONS*** of technological improvements made when we colonize Mars. The advancements in engineering, biology, rocketry, interplanetary space infrastructure, communications, atmospheric and geological sciences, and many more fields that don't even come to mind have to, by necessity, be massive. ***But they're all possible***.  Imagine how powerful of a civilization we will be when we can change the chemical composition of an entire planet. We won't get there without doing all this work on a planet, and Mars is just the most likely candidate.","human_ref_B":"\"Madam, of what use is a newborn child?\"  Here's the thing: Earthrise changed the world.  Imagine the impact of being able to tell your five-year-old daughter there are people living on that red dot in the sky, looking up at the blue dot in their sky that's us? And then go inside and show her the webcam feed? I mean, Rocky Horror and A Man for All Seasons and 2001 rocked my world, but I can't even imagine what that would have done.  So if people who demonstrably know a thingertoo about hydroponics and shielding say the conditions aren't too harsh, that sustainability's an open question and the best way to get answers is to try it?  Me, I'd like to see people building a habitrail and breeding hamsters on whatever follows the ISS first, but first we gotta get the starship working and demonstrate the necessary lift capacity for the project. One step at a time.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":49487.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uil3f3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Trying to colonize Mars is pointless Putting people on Mars seems like a waste of time and resources. There could never be a sustainable settlement there, the conditions are too harsh. Trying to colonize Mars is pointless. We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.   I am not familiar with the counter-arguments which may come up here, but that's why I'm making this post, so i can learn more about the science and the thought process. It might not be too hard to change my mind!   P.S. discussion specifically about SpaceX or Elon Musk is fine, as long as it's based on substantive ideas.","c_root_id_A":"i7e5nsy","c_root_id_B":"i7fwc4e","created_at_utc_A":1651729267,"created_at_utc_B":1651766955,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.  Do you think similar things about all major scientific research projects, like CERN, space telescopes, major geological surveys, etc?","human_ref_B":"It's literally within the physical laws of the universe to colonize Mars. It's even possible to manipulate its atmosphere, radiation levels, soil composition, introduce water & kickstart a water, nitrogen, and carbon cycle on the planet. It's eventually possible to introduce flora and fauna to the planet and allow earth-born people to walk around the Martian surface without a space suit.  Does all that sound super unrealistic? Good! It's literally not impossible, which means there will be ***TONS*** of technological improvements made when we colonize Mars. The advancements in engineering, biology, rocketry, interplanetary space infrastructure, communications, atmospheric and geological sciences, and many more fields that don't even come to mind have to, by necessity, be massive. ***But they're all possible***.  Imagine how powerful of a civilization we will be when we can change the chemical composition of an entire planet. We won't get there without doing all this work on a planet, and Mars is just the most likely candidate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":37688.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uil3f3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Trying to colonize Mars is pointless Putting people on Mars seems like a waste of time and resources. There could never be a sustainable settlement there, the conditions are too harsh. Trying to colonize Mars is pointless. We may \"learn some things along the way,\" but that doesn't justify such a large and wasteful project.   I am not familiar with the counter-arguments which may come up here, but that's why I'm making this post, so i can learn more about the science and the thought process. It might not be too hard to change my mind!   P.S. discussion specifically about SpaceX or Elon Musk is fine, as long as it's based on substantive ideas.","c_root_id_A":"i7ebhpu","c_root_id_B":"i7fwc4e","created_at_utc_A":1651733675,"created_at_utc_B":1651766955,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Let's turn to history for inspiration. Should the English have not settled the Americas after failing to find gold? What about Australia after discovering it was mostly desert? Good things can come from the unlikeliest of places. Long-term, colonizing Mars could lead to bountiful things that are current limited human understanding and knowledge cannot foresee. Perhaps Mars will be first to achieve utopia before Earth. Used as a cheaper transport hub for launching deep-space explorations. But for our descendants to enjoy that future, we must plant the seeds today.","human_ref_B":"It's literally within the physical laws of the universe to colonize Mars. It's even possible to manipulate its atmosphere, radiation levels, soil composition, introduce water & kickstart a water, nitrogen, and carbon cycle on the planet. It's eventually possible to introduce flora and fauna to the planet and allow earth-born people to walk around the Martian surface without a space suit.  Does all that sound super unrealistic? Good! It's literally not impossible, which means there will be ***TONS*** of technological improvements made when we colonize Mars. The advancements in engineering, biology, rocketry, interplanetary space infrastructure, communications, atmospheric and geological sciences, and many more fields that don't even come to mind have to, by necessity, be massive. ***But they're all possible***.  Imagine how powerful of a civilization we will be when we can change the chemical composition of an entire planet. We won't get there without doing all this work on a planet, and Mars is just the most likely candidate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33280.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"pddz0n","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Affirmative Action for college admissions should be based on socioeconimic status, and not race. Title. I'll use myself as an example to start. I'm Lumbee Indian (card-carrying), and thus college is free for me from many instutions.   The issue arises from the fact that I don't live in Robeson County, North Carolina, where much of my family does, and where the Lumbee tend to be poorer than white people, on average. I live in Minnesota, am moderately well-off, and have never faced racial discrimination, (mostly because my dad is white and I got his genes.)  But I still get free college, despite my grades being average at best.   This is why I believe that college admissions shouldn't look at you're race, but at the wealth of your family. Race doesn't generally cause people to get poor grades and test scores, but the wealth of their parents can.   A white kid with a single mother who works as a janitor, but has a 3.8 GOA and a 30 on the ACT would be more qualified for university than Malia Obama, if she had the same numbers.  Race can be a factor, but it isn't always a factor, and colleges should recognize that.","c_root_id_A":"hapo08d","c_root_id_B":"hapqosn","created_at_utc_A":1630176006,"created_at_utc_B":1630177175,"score_A":25,"score_B":407,"human_ref_A":"I honestly can't see how AA for race isnt racist. Its literally handing out privileges based on skin color. Economic status is clearly the better option, but america is obsessed with race for some reason.","human_ref_B":"You seem to misunderstand the goal and history of affirmative action. That's okay. Most people do.   The goal is not to create a level playing field. The goal is not to 're-correct' for prejudice. The goal is not even to benefit the \"recipients\" of affirmative action.   **The goal of affirmative action is desegregation**  Brown Vs. Board of Ed. found that separate but equal never was equal. If that's true, what do we do about defacto separation due to segregation? We need to have future generations of CEOs, judges and teachers who represent 'underrepresented' minorities.   What we ended up having to do was bussing, and AA.  Bussing is moving minorities from segregated neighborhoods into white schools. The idea is for white people to see black faces and the diversity that similar appearance can hide. Seeing that some blacks are Americans and some are Africans would be an important part of desegregation.   **Affirmative action isn't charity to those involved and it isn't supposed to be**  A sober look at the effect of bussing on the kids who were sent to schools with a class that hated them asked that it wasn't a charity. It wasn't even fair to them. We're did it because the country was suffering from the evil of racism and exposure is the only way to heal it.   http:\/\/www.npr.org\/sections\/ed\/2016\/10\/06\/496411024\/why-busing-didnt-end-school-segregation  Affirmative action in schools is similar. Evidence shows that students who are pulled into colleges in which they are underrepresented puts them off balance and often has bad outcomes for those individuals. The beneficiary is society as a whole. AA isn't charity for the underprivileged. Pell grants do that. AA is desegregation.   Race matters in that my children and family will share my race. The people that I care about and have the most in common with share these things. This is very important for practical reasons of access to power. Race is (usually) visually obvious and people who would never consider themselves racist still openly admit that they favor people like themselves (without regard to skin color). Think about times you meet new people:  - first date - first day of class - job interview  Now think about factors that would make it likely that you \"got along\" with people:  - like the same music - share the same cultural vocabulary\/values - know the same people or went to school together  Of these factors of commonality, race is a major determinant. Being liked by people with power is exactly what being powerful is. Your ability to curry favor is the point of social class. Which is why separate but equal is never equal.  So the question is, without the ability for schools to *do* something about de facto racial segregation, how do things change?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1169.0,"score_ratio":16.28}
+{"post_id":"pddz0n","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Affirmative Action for college admissions should be based on socioeconimic status, and not race. Title. I'll use myself as an example to start. I'm Lumbee Indian (card-carrying), and thus college is free for me from many instutions.   The issue arises from the fact that I don't live in Robeson County, North Carolina, where much of my family does, and where the Lumbee tend to be poorer than white people, on average. I live in Minnesota, am moderately well-off, and have never faced racial discrimination, (mostly because my dad is white and I got his genes.)  But I still get free college, despite my grades being average at best.   This is why I believe that college admissions shouldn't look at you're race, but at the wealth of your family. Race doesn't generally cause people to get poor grades and test scores, but the wealth of their parents can.   A white kid with a single mother who works as a janitor, but has a 3.8 GOA and a 30 on the ACT would be more qualified for university than Malia Obama, if she had the same numbers.  Race can be a factor, but it isn't always a factor, and colleges should recognize that.","c_root_id_A":"hapqosn","c_root_id_B":"hapi9ba","created_at_utc_A":1630177175,"created_at_utc_B":1630173559,"score_A":407,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You seem to misunderstand the goal and history of affirmative action. That's okay. Most people do.   The goal is not to create a level playing field. The goal is not to 're-correct' for prejudice. The goal is not even to benefit the \"recipients\" of affirmative action.   **The goal of affirmative action is desegregation**  Brown Vs. Board of Ed. found that separate but equal never was equal. If that's true, what do we do about defacto separation due to segregation? We need to have future generations of CEOs, judges and teachers who represent 'underrepresented' minorities.   What we ended up having to do was bussing, and AA.  Bussing is moving minorities from segregated neighborhoods into white schools. The idea is for white people to see black faces and the diversity that similar appearance can hide. Seeing that some blacks are Americans and some are Africans would be an important part of desegregation.   **Affirmative action isn't charity to those involved and it isn't supposed to be**  A sober look at the effect of bussing on the kids who were sent to schools with a class that hated them asked that it wasn't a charity. It wasn't even fair to them. We're did it because the country was suffering from the evil of racism and exposure is the only way to heal it.   http:\/\/www.npr.org\/sections\/ed\/2016\/10\/06\/496411024\/why-busing-didnt-end-school-segregation  Affirmative action in schools is similar. Evidence shows that students who are pulled into colleges in which they are underrepresented puts them off balance and often has bad outcomes for those individuals. The beneficiary is society as a whole. AA isn't charity for the underprivileged. Pell grants do that. AA is desegregation.   Race matters in that my children and family will share my race. The people that I care about and have the most in common with share these things. This is very important for practical reasons of access to power. Race is (usually) visually obvious and people who would never consider themselves racist still openly admit that they favor people like themselves (without regard to skin color). Think about times you meet new people:  - first date - first day of class - job interview  Now think about factors that would make it likely that you \"got along\" with people:  - like the same music - share the same cultural vocabulary\/values - know the same people or went to school together  Of these factors of commonality, race is a major determinant. Being liked by people with power is exactly what being powerful is. Your ability to curry favor is the point of social class. Which is why separate but equal is never equal.  So the question is, without the ability for schools to *do* something about de facto racial segregation, how do things change?","human_ref_B":"Why not both?  You're right that race isn't a perfect indicator of experiencing racial discrimination. You're also right that socioeconomic factors have a bigger impact. But race *does* have an impact on average, even once you control for socioeconomic factors, and *no* indicator used by college admissions is a perfect representation of what they're really trying to figure out. So why not pay attention to both?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3616.0,"score_ratio":67.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"pddz0n","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Affirmative Action for college admissions should be based on socioeconimic status, and not race. Title. I'll use myself as an example to start. I'm Lumbee Indian (card-carrying), and thus college is free for me from many instutions.   The issue arises from the fact that I don't live in Robeson County, North Carolina, where much of my family does, and where the Lumbee tend to be poorer than white people, on average. I live in Minnesota, am moderately well-off, and have never faced racial discrimination, (mostly because my dad is white and I got his genes.)  But I still get free college, despite my grades being average at best.   This is why I believe that college admissions shouldn't look at you're race, but at the wealth of your family. Race doesn't generally cause people to get poor grades and test scores, but the wealth of their parents can.   A white kid with a single mother who works as a janitor, but has a 3.8 GOA and a 30 on the ACT would be more qualified for university than Malia Obama, if she had the same numbers.  Race can be a factor, but it isn't always a factor, and colleges should recognize that.","c_root_id_A":"hapi9ba","c_root_id_B":"hapo08d","created_at_utc_A":1630173559,"created_at_utc_B":1630176006,"score_A":6,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Why not both?  You're right that race isn't a perfect indicator of experiencing racial discrimination. You're also right that socioeconomic factors have a bigger impact. But race *does* have an impact on average, even once you control for socioeconomic factors, and *no* indicator used by college admissions is a perfect representation of what they're really trying to figure out. So why not pay attention to both?","human_ref_B":"I honestly can't see how AA for race isnt racist. Its literally handing out privileges based on skin color. Economic status is clearly the better option, but america is obsessed with race for some reason.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2447.0,"score_ratio":4.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"pddz0n","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Affirmative Action for college admissions should be based on socioeconimic status, and not race. Title. I'll use myself as an example to start. I'm Lumbee Indian (card-carrying), and thus college is free for me from many instutions.   The issue arises from the fact that I don't live in Robeson County, North Carolina, where much of my family does, and where the Lumbee tend to be poorer than white people, on average. I live in Minnesota, am moderately well-off, and have never faced racial discrimination, (mostly because my dad is white and I got his genes.)  But I still get free college, despite my grades being average at best.   This is why I believe that college admissions shouldn't look at you're race, but at the wealth of your family. Race doesn't generally cause people to get poor grades and test scores, but the wealth of their parents can.   A white kid with a single mother who works as a janitor, but has a 3.8 GOA and a 30 on the ACT would be more qualified for university than Malia Obama, if she had the same numbers.  Race can be a factor, but it isn't always a factor, and colleges should recognize that.","c_root_id_A":"haro7c2","c_root_id_B":"haqkd5r","created_at_utc_A":1630212129,"created_at_utc_B":1630190872,"score_A":20,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"White women have benefited the MOST from affirmative action and yet tend to be the biggest proponents against it. Race isn\u2019t the only factor that goes into AA. Gender is a major portion of the affirmative action initiative. So many people overlook this.","human_ref_B":"Well u\/fox-mcleod made a great point about the real reason for AA and I would like to build on it.   Because of all the things the commenter said, AA is cast in a pretty positive light in higher Ed.   You have to also remember that colleges are businesses before anything else.  At this point in our society, AA in higher Ed translates into good PR for the schools that go all out to practice it. That, in turn translates into more donations to the school and more prestige for it.  You could pour all your efforts into recruiting poor white kids, but it's not going to be good for any sort of diversity ranking or give you much in the way of good write ups on school review websites.  Besides, a school is going to get paid the same tuition whether it's via student loan, grant, or parent financed so why shouldn't they get the perks of admitting minorities.  It's just good finances.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21257.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"pddz0n","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Affirmative Action for college admissions should be based on socioeconimic status, and not race. Title. I'll use myself as an example to start. I'm Lumbee Indian (card-carrying), and thus college is free for me from many instutions.   The issue arises from the fact that I don't live in Robeson County, North Carolina, where much of my family does, and where the Lumbee tend to be poorer than white people, on average. I live in Minnesota, am moderately well-off, and have never faced racial discrimination, (mostly because my dad is white and I got his genes.)  But I still get free college, despite my grades being average at best.   This is why I believe that college admissions shouldn't look at you're race, but at the wealth of your family. Race doesn't generally cause people to get poor grades and test scores, but the wealth of their parents can.   A white kid with a single mother who works as a janitor, but has a 3.8 GOA and a 30 on the ACT would be more qualified for university than Malia Obama, if she had the same numbers.  Race can be a factor, but it isn't always a factor, and colleges should recognize that.","c_root_id_A":"haro7c2","c_root_id_B":"hapi9ba","created_at_utc_A":1630212129,"created_at_utc_B":1630173559,"score_A":20,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"White women have benefited the MOST from affirmative action and yet tend to be the biggest proponents against it. Race isn\u2019t the only factor that goes into AA. Gender is a major portion of the affirmative action initiative. So many people overlook this.","human_ref_B":"Why not both?  You're right that race isn't a perfect indicator of experiencing racial discrimination. You're also right that socioeconomic factors have a bigger impact. But race *does* have an impact on average, even once you control for socioeconomic factors, and *no* indicator used by college admissions is a perfect representation of what they're really trying to figure out. So why not pay attention to both?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":38570.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"pddz0n","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: Affirmative Action for college admissions should be based on socioeconimic status, and not race. Title. I'll use myself as an example to start. I'm Lumbee Indian (card-carrying), and thus college is free for me from many instutions.   The issue arises from the fact that I don't live in Robeson County, North Carolina, where much of my family does, and where the Lumbee tend to be poorer than white people, on average. I live in Minnesota, am moderately well-off, and have never faced racial discrimination, (mostly because my dad is white and I got his genes.)  But I still get free college, despite my grades being average at best.   This is why I believe that college admissions shouldn't look at you're race, but at the wealth of your family. Race doesn't generally cause people to get poor grades and test scores, but the wealth of their parents can.   A white kid with a single mother who works as a janitor, but has a 3.8 GOA and a 30 on the ACT would be more qualified for university than Malia Obama, if she had the same numbers.  Race can be a factor, but it isn't always a factor, and colleges should recognize that.","c_root_id_A":"hapi9ba","c_root_id_B":"haqkd5r","created_at_utc_A":1630173559,"created_at_utc_B":1630190872,"score_A":6,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Why not both?  You're right that race isn't a perfect indicator of experiencing racial discrimination. You're also right that socioeconomic factors have a bigger impact. But race *does* have an impact on average, even once you control for socioeconomic factors, and *no* indicator used by college admissions is a perfect representation of what they're really trying to figure out. So why not pay attention to both?","human_ref_B":"Well u\/fox-mcleod made a great point about the real reason for AA and I would like to build on it.   Because of all the things the commenter said, AA is cast in a pretty positive light in higher Ed.   You have to also remember that colleges are businesses before anything else.  At this point in our society, AA in higher Ed translates into good PR for the schools that go all out to practice it. That, in turn translates into more donations to the school and more prestige for it.  You could pour all your efforts into recruiting poor white kids, but it's not going to be good for any sort of diversity ranking or give you much in the way of good write ups on school review websites.  Besides, a school is going to get paid the same tuition whether it's via student loan, grant, or parent financed so why shouldn't they get the perks of admitting minorities.  It's just good finances.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17313.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"mecd73","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: All media outlets should be forced to change to not for profit organisations. I truly believe the primary function of media outlets should be the spread of information. However, in this modern age news\/media companies are so reliant on clicks\/views in order to turn a profit that the quality of reporting suffers significantly. Sensational headlines, opinion pieces (often controversial) and a general need need to stand out often results in articles that have no substance. All because the primary goal is actually get you to click and subsequently view an ad.   Don\u2019t get me wrong I don\u2019t think that all news should be facts and statistics printed in black and white. I too enjoy \u2018feel good\u2019 stories about things that aren\u2019t actually news. I do however think that journalists and media outlets should be held accountable for deliberately misleading people and I think the greatest source of this \u2018misinformation\u2019 is ridiculous headlines purely focused on generating traffic.","c_root_id_A":"gsfsin5","c_root_id_B":"gsg4hzn","created_at_utc_A":1616848407,"created_at_utc_B":1616852576,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Not for profit \u2260 no agenda.","human_ref_B":"There are quality news reporters, organizations and sources today but the majority of people don\u2019t want that. They want their echo chamber, self-reinforcing news as entertainment.  And what do you mean by \u201cmedia outlets\u201d? Tons of people get their news from Facebook and Twitter. Would they be allowed to stay for profit or not?  And how small down do you go? Do independent \/ freelance journalists or kids starting a podcast need to register as a non-profit?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4169.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"mecd73","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: All media outlets should be forced to change to not for profit organisations. I truly believe the primary function of media outlets should be the spread of information. However, in this modern age news\/media companies are so reliant on clicks\/views in order to turn a profit that the quality of reporting suffers significantly. Sensational headlines, opinion pieces (often controversial) and a general need need to stand out often results in articles that have no substance. All because the primary goal is actually get you to click and subsequently view an ad.   Don\u2019t get me wrong I don\u2019t think that all news should be facts and statistics printed in black and white. I too enjoy \u2018feel good\u2019 stories about things that aren\u2019t actually news. I do however think that journalists and media outlets should be held accountable for deliberately misleading people and I think the greatest source of this \u2018misinformation\u2019 is ridiculous headlines purely focused on generating traffic.","c_root_id_A":"gsfv2ou","c_root_id_B":"gsg4hzn","created_at_utc_A":1616849478,"created_at_utc_B":1616852576,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Yeah, you are conflating a few things here.  1. as folks have pointed out, being non-profit or not-for-profit doesn't equate to impartial 2. you have a false impression of what media outlets exist for. Sure, it'd be nice if they focused on giving the facts...but what they exist for is to bring profit to the shareholders. Most of them do this by pandering do their demographic in order to get maximum viewership in front of advertising.  3. Another problem we all face is that journalism is almost dead in this country (the US...not sure about other countries). It has all but given way to sensationalism. Today it is FAR better to be first, than to be accurate. Better to blow a story out of proportion (gotta get those viewers in front of those ads!) than to give a factual accounting. 4. Lastly, having a dozen \"news\" channels that run 24\/7 means they have to fill that airtime with *something* ...so further incentive to blow crap up and bias it.   I also lament the status of the \"news\" today...I just don't think your solution fits the actual problem.","human_ref_B":"There are quality news reporters, organizations and sources today but the majority of people don\u2019t want that. They want their echo chamber, self-reinforcing news as entertainment.  And what do you mean by \u201cmedia outlets\u201d? Tons of people get their news from Facebook and Twitter. Would they be allowed to stay for profit or not?  And how small down do you go? Do independent \/ freelance journalists or kids starting a podcast need to register as a non-profit?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3098.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"24m25b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: I believe the only feasible solution to Israel\/Palestine is to make Gaza, Israel and the West Bank one State that provides civil rights to all it's people (Jewish and Palestinian) This won't solve everything. Jews and Palestinians still won't like each other, but hopefully they will be able to slowly transition from bombs and rockets to parliamentary debates.  The refugee issue would also still be problematic, but there would be the possibility of working it out.  I don't think that anyone seriously believes in a two state solution at this point. Israel Palestine is too small, Jerusalem is too important and Palestinian territories aren't even contiguous.   I know many Palestinians want all European Jews to leave Palestine, but this isn't realistic and would require really bad ethnic cleansing. North African countries ethnically cleansed the European settlers there in the mid 20th century and their economies still haven't recovered.  Furthermore, many Israelis don't want to live as equals with Arabs, but given demographic and political trends they won't have a choice pretty soon. The majority of Israeli citizens will probably be Muslim Arabs by the middle of this century, and this isn't even counting the people living in Gaza and the West Bank with no rights. It seems that if Israelis want to live in peace and sustain a Jewish presence in the Holy land they are going to have to give the Palestinians rights. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ch8pwc2","c_root_id_B":"ch8vwu5","created_at_utc_A":1399146254,"created_at_utc_B":1399162618,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Bottom line: a one-state solution will preclude the possibility of Israel remaining concurrently Jewish and democratic. I like to think that *most* Israelis would find that outcome unacceptable. I know most serious US policymakers sure would.","human_ref_B":"Unfortunately , there's a reason that Israel is currently in command of these territories and won't simply give them up.  The bottom line is that Israel is surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors. We can argue forever about who started it but in the end that's what it boils down to. Israel wants defensible borders. Full stop.  Those neighbors may not be particularly belligerent today but that could change pretty quickly.  A lot of the people currently residing in the occupied territories are not and never were interested in becoming citizens of a Jewish state on land they feel is rightfully theirs. Again, I'm not going to debate who and why or any of that. What's important is that Israel is riding a tiger and it can't get off. Were Israel to suddenly open up the doors and allow free passage , those baddies would also be free to start doing what they do best. What would happen ? Israel would set loose its baddies. One way or another you'd end up right back where you started.  There are people on both sides who just aren't going to let any of this go. Never. No amount of time is going to change anything. No amount of propaganda is going to change anything.  Where you're wrong there are two points.  1-Demographic trends are notoriously difficult to predict beyond about a decade. The Jewish Diaspora is worldwide and if you look at Ukraine right now there are signs that Jews there are being given yet another incentive to head for the Holy Land.  2-Israel is perpetually in a state of war readiness. They will NEVER drop their guard. The minute there's any sign of an organized threat , the guns get pointed and the marching orders get issued. You don't need numbers to win wars anymore : All you need is the technology and the education to use it. Israeli Jews have both. History has taught them to make sure they always have it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16364.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"6mg94t","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Change my view thatClaiming that black people cannot be racist bc they never had power is absurd I simply don't understand the argument that black people cannot be racist because apparently the new definition for racism isn't discrimination of another human being based on the uncontrollable trait of their skin color, but instead that racism = prejudice + power. I honestly just want to understand why some people think this applies to black people. IMO, when someone says \"well blacks have never had institutional power therefore they can't be racist\", my response is \"really? Well I'm sure all the white supremacists will feel really relieved when I tell them that we didn't just have an African-American in charge of what is arguably the most powerful position in the world for the last 8 years.\"  Edit: I am genuinely curious if there is something I am not taking into account with my reasoning.","c_root_id_A":"dk1btrr","c_root_id_B":"dk1c0oq","created_at_utc_A":1499710995,"created_at_utc_B":1499711196,"score_A":6,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"Just to clarify, based on your post, it seems as though you understand the concept behind the definition (prejudice + power), but you think that black Americans also have considerable institutional power (Obama is your example, here). So you're looking for evidence that black Americans lack institutional power and NOT just more elaboration of the concept itself.   Is that fair?","human_ref_B":"Individual racism and institutional racism are two different concepts.  Most activists are interested in talking about institutional racism because it has a bigger impact on people's lives.  This is a completely semantic discussion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":201.0,"score_ratio":8.0}
+{"post_id":"6mg94t","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Change my view thatClaiming that black people cannot be racist bc they never had power is absurd I simply don't understand the argument that black people cannot be racist because apparently the new definition for racism isn't discrimination of another human being based on the uncontrollable trait of their skin color, but instead that racism = prejudice + power. I honestly just want to understand why some people think this applies to black people. IMO, when someone says \"well blacks have never had institutional power therefore they can't be racist\", my response is \"really? Well I'm sure all the white supremacists will feel really relieved when I tell them that we didn't just have an African-American in charge of what is arguably the most powerful position in the world for the last 8 years.\"  Edit: I am genuinely curious if there is something I am not taking into account with my reasoning.","c_root_id_A":"dk1fqym","c_root_id_B":"dk1phg0","created_at_utc_A":1499715154,"created_at_utc_B":1499726013,"score_A":10,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"In years and years of thinking & arguing about issues like this, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone seriously argue that \"black people can't be racist because they have no power.\" I agree that it's a stupid argument, but I don't think very many people make that argument.   The argument that I do see out in the world is that black racism and white racism are treated differently because they have very different contexts. Black people as a whole are not in a position to impose discriminatory laws and economic institutions against white people even if they wanted to, and they never have been. With that context in mind, white racists who are anti-black have the potential to do a great deal of social harm to millions of people, whereas black people who are anti-white do not have that potential. Therefore when it comes to dealing with widespread social problems, one of those problems is much higher on the priority list than the other. Everyone of any race can be racist, but in our present-day society some forms of racism are far more harmful than other forms.","human_ref_B":"I think there are two places where we can get confused talking about racism.  One is in talking about the bigotry and prejudice embraced by individuals, compared with the inequality embedded, embraced, or otherwise enmeshed in the structures, conventions, and cultural fabric of our society.   But the other is even embedded in talking about the personal prejudices so many of us have.  Would you be surprised if I told you that I think we BOTH probably mean quite well, but that we BOTH probably exhibit fairly strong unconscious bias towards white people and against black people?   An illustration of this is the Implicit Association Test, (see here: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Implicit-association_test ).     It's frustrating to realize that you and I might be perpetuating systemic racism without intending to.  This is especially hard to accept because I think many of us have accepted racism as something vile and nasty and something perpetuated unapologetically by cruel people... more importantly, by OTHER people.     But this is the very nature of systemic racism.  It creeps in when we're not paying attention.  And it's something that we all do.  People who grow up in our society are instructed in it in all sorts of little ways.  A black character in a movie or TV show was more probably a bad guy, or at least unimportant, and often was killed off.  But now this becomes a self-reinforcing system.  Now it's difficult to cast black men (all people of colour actually) in leading roles because it breaks the prejudice and confuses some viewers.  It's not just about the angry mob shaking their pitchforks that they will boycott James Bond if Idris Elba is cast.  It's that people who don't THINK they're racist will feel uncomfortable about the show and start watching something else, and the show will fail.  So the show runners have to be very brave to buck decades of tradition and cast people of colour into big positive roles.   You noted at one point how Asian people don't suffer bias.  Could you and I have a chat about Asian actors on stage and screen?   There are a few.  But people of colour are mostly underrepresented there, even when they belong to a group that you claim has no bias against them.  So we might have to re-examine what we mean by 'no bias'.  I don't agree with you that there is none, it's just that our biases are shaped differently than the biases we have about black people.   Actors, CEOs, Students, Employees, and suspects being approached by the police, they can all suffer from bias... both overt and unconscious.   And this might be very surprising to you, or not, a large number of black people who take their own IAT tests will show an association between white people and positive things, vs black people and negative things.  No typo there.  It's because it's culturally embedded in so many of our structures.  And THAT's an interesting outcome that demonstrates to me that its a cultural problem, not a white-people vs black-people problem.     But to draw it back to your question,  I think it's silly to claim that black people can have no PREJUDICES about race (sorry to change your word, but I find that word generally escapes the definition police).  But it's also silly to compare the overt prejudices of a given black person with the large systemic prejudices of our North American society against black people (and in fact all people of colour).   They're not just different things, their scope of effect is incomparable.  That's my view, and though it might be technically tangent to the view you want challenged, I think it addresses the root source of that view.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10859.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"6mg94t","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Change my view thatClaiming that black people cannot be racist bc they never had power is absurd I simply don't understand the argument that black people cannot be racist because apparently the new definition for racism isn't discrimination of another human being based on the uncontrollable trait of their skin color, but instead that racism = prejudice + power. I honestly just want to understand why some people think this applies to black people. IMO, when someone says \"well blacks have never had institutional power therefore they can't be racist\", my response is \"really? Well I'm sure all the white supremacists will feel really relieved when I tell them that we didn't just have an African-American in charge of what is arguably the most powerful position in the world for the last 8 years.\"  Edit: I am genuinely curious if there is something I am not taking into account with my reasoning.","c_root_id_A":"dk1phg0","c_root_id_B":"dk1btrr","created_at_utc_A":1499726013,"created_at_utc_B":1499710995,"score_A":45,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I think there are two places where we can get confused talking about racism.  One is in talking about the bigotry and prejudice embraced by individuals, compared with the inequality embedded, embraced, or otherwise enmeshed in the structures, conventions, and cultural fabric of our society.   But the other is even embedded in talking about the personal prejudices so many of us have.  Would you be surprised if I told you that I think we BOTH probably mean quite well, but that we BOTH probably exhibit fairly strong unconscious bias towards white people and against black people?   An illustration of this is the Implicit Association Test, (see here: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Implicit-association_test ).     It's frustrating to realize that you and I might be perpetuating systemic racism without intending to.  This is especially hard to accept because I think many of us have accepted racism as something vile and nasty and something perpetuated unapologetically by cruel people... more importantly, by OTHER people.     But this is the very nature of systemic racism.  It creeps in when we're not paying attention.  And it's something that we all do.  People who grow up in our society are instructed in it in all sorts of little ways.  A black character in a movie or TV show was more probably a bad guy, or at least unimportant, and often was killed off.  But now this becomes a self-reinforcing system.  Now it's difficult to cast black men (all people of colour actually) in leading roles because it breaks the prejudice and confuses some viewers.  It's not just about the angry mob shaking their pitchforks that they will boycott James Bond if Idris Elba is cast.  It's that people who don't THINK they're racist will feel uncomfortable about the show and start watching something else, and the show will fail.  So the show runners have to be very brave to buck decades of tradition and cast people of colour into big positive roles.   You noted at one point how Asian people don't suffer bias.  Could you and I have a chat about Asian actors on stage and screen?   There are a few.  But people of colour are mostly underrepresented there, even when they belong to a group that you claim has no bias against them.  So we might have to re-examine what we mean by 'no bias'.  I don't agree with you that there is none, it's just that our biases are shaped differently than the biases we have about black people.   Actors, CEOs, Students, Employees, and suspects being approached by the police, they can all suffer from bias... both overt and unconscious.   And this might be very surprising to you, or not, a large number of black people who take their own IAT tests will show an association between white people and positive things, vs black people and negative things.  No typo there.  It's because it's culturally embedded in so many of our structures.  And THAT's an interesting outcome that demonstrates to me that its a cultural problem, not a white-people vs black-people problem.     But to draw it back to your question,  I think it's silly to claim that black people can have no PREJUDICES about race (sorry to change your word, but I find that word generally escapes the definition police).  But it's also silly to compare the overt prejudices of a given black person with the large systemic prejudices of our North American society against black people (and in fact all people of colour).   They're not just different things, their scope of effect is incomparable.  That's my view, and though it might be technically tangent to the view you want challenged, I think it addresses the root source of that view.","human_ref_B":"Just to clarify, based on your post, it seems as though you understand the concept behind the definition (prejudice + power), but you think that black Americans also have considerable institutional power (Obama is your example, here). So you're looking for evidence that black Americans lack institutional power and NOT just more elaboration of the concept itself.   Is that fair?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15018.0,"score_ratio":7.5}
+{"post_id":"6mg94t","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Change my view thatClaiming that black people cannot be racist bc they never had power is absurd I simply don't understand the argument that black people cannot be racist because apparently the new definition for racism isn't discrimination of another human being based on the uncontrollable trait of their skin color, but instead that racism = prejudice + power. I honestly just want to understand why some people think this applies to black people. IMO, when someone says \"well blacks have never had institutional power therefore they can't be racist\", my response is \"really? Well I'm sure all the white supremacists will feel really relieved when I tell them that we didn't just have an African-American in charge of what is arguably the most powerful position in the world for the last 8 years.\"  Edit: I am genuinely curious if there is something I am not taking into account with my reasoning.","c_root_id_A":"dk1btrr","c_root_id_B":"dk1fqym","created_at_utc_A":1499710995,"created_at_utc_B":1499715154,"score_A":6,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Just to clarify, based on your post, it seems as though you understand the concept behind the definition (prejudice + power), but you think that black Americans also have considerable institutional power (Obama is your example, here). So you're looking for evidence that black Americans lack institutional power and NOT just more elaboration of the concept itself.   Is that fair?","human_ref_B":"In years and years of thinking & arguing about issues like this, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone seriously argue that \"black people can't be racist because they have no power.\" I agree that it's a stupid argument, but I don't think very many people make that argument.   The argument that I do see out in the world is that black racism and white racism are treated differently because they have very different contexts. Black people as a whole are not in a position to impose discriminatory laws and economic institutions against white people even if they wanted to, and they never have been. With that context in mind, white racists who are anti-black have the potential to do a great deal of social harm to millions of people, whereas black people who are anti-white do not have that potential. Therefore when it comes to dealing with widespread social problems, one of those problems is much higher on the priority list than the other. Everyone of any race can be racist, but in our present-day society some forms of racism are far more harmful than other forms.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4159.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"ut9vgt","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: An actor's personal life does not change how I watch their movies. Let's use the Amber Heard v Johnny Depp case going on as an example;  I could care less about what either of them have done in their personal lives. Whether they are perpetrators in domestic abuse\/violence, whether they do drugs, have humiliated themselves in public, or in a worst case scenario, even killed someone.  This applies to any actor, no matter what has happened in their personal lives that society looks down upon, I'm not watching a movie to care so much about the actor as much as I am watching a movie for the sake of the movie.  Also for the record, I don't think Amber Heard should have been removed from Aquaman 2.","c_root_id_A":"i98ivv4","c_root_id_B":"i994h5t","created_at_utc_A":1652986663,"created_at_utc_B":1652996504,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Have you ever watched a show or a movie with a well-known actor that you associate with a specific role? Does how you view that person change how you watch the new role that they're in? Probably, to some extent.  It's the same thing with actor's personal lives. The reason well-known actors are cast in movies is because of their reputation that is presumably positive and going to pull people in. Before even seeing the movie, we make decisions at least partially based on who the actors are, if recognizable. It has some sort of influence on us. And with the act of watching the movie, I'm going to be more willing to give the actor a chance if I don't have any sort of negative bias to associate with them. If they're likeable then I'll, at the very least, approach them that way in the movie. if they're unknown then I have no reason to not give them a fair chance and be as immersed as possible.  So, ultimately, I would argue that watching any known actor in a role changes the way you view the movie to some extent. In an ideal world, the best movies would arguably be shot with unknown and unrecognizable people, imo. But people like Amber Heard are also removed from roles because they're controversial and people will associate the movie's stance with her stance. Even if you can watch it objectively, a lot of people can't, and aren't willing to support someone they might view in a negative light. I go out of my way to not watch films or shows with Scientologists, for example, even though there are some fantastic shows and films that they star in.","human_ref_B":"Generally speaking, I agree with you.  But at the extremes there has to be a limit.    What if prior to becoming the worst human being on record, Hitler had been a wildly successful actor.  Wouldn't his actions post-acting have some retroactive influence on your ability to enjoy his films?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9841.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"18ssrl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"I think Capitalism is the best socio-economic system to date. CMV I think that capitalism is superior to all other social\/economic systems for the following reasons:  *It values\/rewards hard work, talent, ingenuity, etc. *It provides for open competition *It presents a truly equal playing field for all  To be clear, I'm talking about free-market, Laissez-faire, capitalism. Also, when presenting an argument in opposition, please say which other system you prefer and why.","c_root_id_A":"c8ho771","c_root_id_B":"c8hp59i","created_at_utc_A":1361252189,"created_at_utc_B":1361255914,"score_A":10,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Since its late, I won't post links to research papers or anything. That being said, let's go... Capitalism is an economic system in which most of the economic decisions are made by the private sector. Its a Explain like I'm five years old definition, but still works for now.   > It values\/rewards hard work, talent, ingenuity  well... just if you have the money\/contacts\/money\/LUCK\/were born in a rich country, why? becauce the system only rewards those who have the \"opportunity\" (remember this). Not everybody can be a CEO (shocking! I know), not everybody can be a President, not everybody can be a manager, etc, no matter how much you work, rewards are NOT guaranteed  > It provides for open competition  True. Hayekian\/Austrian economists believe the government pretty much sucks, so the market must be de-regulated. Anything fishy yet? ONLY THOSE WITH OPPORTUNITIES (resources, luck, \"friends\", money, etc) can be successful.  > It presents a truly equal playing field for all.  What does this mean? you mean... people with opportunities can use the market to their benefit? Now its true that people with the SAME resources are equal, but... is it the reality?  > Capitalism is the best socio-economic system to date.  You're absolutely right. It's the best we got. But not because its great, but because all other options are terrible.  Nowadays, we do NOT have an economic system that tries to make the world better, we just don't. The economic systems we use today were designed mostly by people decades ago, when people only cared about their country. But now, its no longer the case (or shouldn't). Personally, I don't like any mainstream economic system, maybe a Resource-Based Economy, or anything like that (read about it, it's cool!).","human_ref_B":"I agree with you.  Am I allowed to say that here?  People will say that truly free markets lead to monopolies, but really the monopolies are in the hands of or reinforced by the government.  The competitive nature of the market forces a company to be always dealing with potential threats.  A quick google search for \"free markets and monopolies\" will give you a few days worth of material to soundly refute this claim.  Also, come join \/r\/Anarcho_Capitalism for pleasant and intellectually stimulating discussion on this topic.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3725.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"18ssrl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"I think Capitalism is the best socio-economic system to date. CMV I think that capitalism is superior to all other social\/economic systems for the following reasons:  *It values\/rewards hard work, talent, ingenuity, etc. *It provides for open competition *It presents a truly equal playing field for all  To be clear, I'm talking about free-market, Laissez-faire, capitalism. Also, when presenting an argument in opposition, please say which other system you prefer and why.","c_root_id_A":"c8hp59i","c_root_id_B":"c8hoo4n","created_at_utc_A":1361255914,"created_at_utc_B":1361253931,"score_A":20,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you.  Am I allowed to say that here?  People will say that truly free markets lead to monopolies, but really the monopolies are in the hands of or reinforced by the government.  The competitive nature of the market forces a company to be always dealing with potential threats.  A quick google search for \"free markets and monopolies\" will give you a few days worth of material to soundly refute this claim.  Also, come join \/r\/Anarcho_Capitalism for pleasant and intellectually stimulating discussion on this topic.","human_ref_B":"Laissez-faire capitalism has an inherent failure mode which all economists are aware of.  Much of the government policies of the 18th century onward are about overcoming this failure mode.  Here it is:  *Money makes you more efficient at competition.*  Now, this is an obvious thing.  The problem is this causes an inevitable shift towards consolidation.  One company starts to compete slightly better than others and gets an advantage, then they leverage that advantage and can compete *better still*.  This forms a feedback loop giving them more and more money and more and more competitive advantage.  Eventually they get rich and efficient enough that no company can compete with them in their field, and all the other companies are killed off.  This is called a monopoly.  A monopoly is the inevitable result of capitalism.  Monopolies will always form in a laissez-faire capitalist system, much like water will always flow downhill.  Once a monopoly is formed, they tend to just extract rent.  In other words, they give a shitty service but they're so big they can prevent others from competing while still grabbing up huge bags of money.  As for competing systems, the easiest answer is a mixed economy.  It's capitalism with strict government controls, reigning in on monopolies, and government enforcement of fair markets.  It's part free market, part central planning.  The only question is how much do you mix?  80-20 Capitalism-Communism, 50-50, or 20-80?  That's a question that countries and economists still struggle with today.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1983.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"18ssrl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"I think Capitalism is the best socio-economic system to date. CMV I think that capitalism is superior to all other social\/economic systems for the following reasons:  *It values\/rewards hard work, talent, ingenuity, etc. *It provides for open competition *It presents a truly equal playing field for all  To be clear, I'm talking about free-market, Laissez-faire, capitalism. Also, when presenting an argument in opposition, please say which other system you prefer and why.","c_root_id_A":"c8hrebp","c_root_id_B":"c8icmq7","created_at_utc_A":1361272177,"created_at_utc_B":1361344910,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Long term survival of human race requires all kinds of natural resources. The game of capitalism is much about using these resources for monetary gain, fast. The top capitalists have short-time relative wins but eventually everyone is fucked.   I wish I knew a better alternative. Tribal living is something that actually works in the long run (generation after generation) but it's impossible to go back there at this point. And technology is actually very cool and \"human\" if there was a way it could be done with less waste.  I must also add to your description that capitalism rewards sociopathic tendencies, the people who are willing to fuck most people over get the biggest paychecks.","human_ref_B":"Capitalism is an economic system that is defined by the dominance of a social class (the proletariat) that has to sell its wage labor for means of sustenance.  Capitalism is characterized by alienated production. By reducing workers to sell themselves for sustenance capitalism alienates workers from their own productive lives and their higher needs of belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.  The system of alienation is founded on absentee ownership. Thanks to the world intellectual property organization (WIPO) capitalists have ownership of intellectual property even from thousands of miles away. Modern consumers are alienated from their own products because the design of their products are privately owned by capitalists even though the owners may be far away.  The system of absentee ownership also allows for the capitalists to privately own instruments of labor even when they aren't using them themselves. Workers are reduced to using privately owned owned instruments of labor alienating themselves from production in the process. Furthermore, workers have to compete with one another to sell their labour power on the market alienating workers from one another.  In total capitalism is characterized by four types of alienation (1) alienation from products (absentee ownership of product designs), (2) alienation from production (absentee ownership of instruments of labor), (3) alienation from ones own life, and (4) alienation from ones fellow workers.  You said of capitalism that \"It values\/rewards hard work, talent, ingenuity, etc. It provides for open competition. It presents a truly equal playing field for all.\" Assuming that that this statement is accurate and these things are good they are not at all dependent upon capitalism.   Mutualism has all these features including extra rewards for those are hard working or talented. The only thing that effectively distinguishes mutualism from capitalism is that there is no longer any alienation. In place of alienated production, mutualism is maintained by self employed artisans and farmers, small producers cooperatives, and other forms of associations of free producers.   I think that wikis are a great example of what is possible without alienation. In wikis there is no user\/producer distinction because wikis are produced by the users themselves. In general, I prefer associations of free producers over capitalism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":72733.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"18ssrl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"I think Capitalism is the best socio-economic system to date. CMV I think that capitalism is superior to all other social\/economic systems for the following reasons:  *It values\/rewards hard work, talent, ingenuity, etc. *It provides for open competition *It presents a truly equal playing field for all  To be clear, I'm talking about free-market, Laissez-faire, capitalism. Also, when presenting an argument in opposition, please say which other system you prefer and why.","c_root_id_A":"c8hrebp","c_root_id_B":"c8iwgqs","created_at_utc_A":1361272177,"created_at_utc_B":1361420303,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Long term survival of human race requires all kinds of natural resources. The game of capitalism is much about using these resources for monetary gain, fast. The top capitalists have short-time relative wins but eventually everyone is fucked.   I wish I knew a better alternative. Tribal living is something that actually works in the long run (generation after generation) but it's impossible to go back there at this point. And technology is actually very cool and \"human\" if there was a way it could be done with less waste.  I must also add to your description that capitalism rewards sociopathic tendencies, the people who are willing to fuck most people over get the biggest paychecks.","human_ref_B":"Well it looks an awful lot like \/r\/anarcho_capitalism raided this thread in force.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":148126.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hr3sik","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Not allowing non-black people wear cornrows is fighting racism with racism In American history, black people who wore cornrows were oppressed against for wearing them. They are often fired from the workplace, maybe not allowed to graduate, and are seen as thuggish. Black people wear it to remember their culture, celebrate it, or express themselves stylistically. The problem these days seem to still involve discrimination and oppression for simply wearing them.  These days when non-black people wear them, they get huge backlash for cultural appropriation, for not understanding the significance, etc. They get hate for wearing cornrows. In my eyes, this is the idea of fighting racism with racism. Oppressing other cultures through cultural criticism and unfair treatment by saying \"you're not black so you can't wear them\". This idea feeds into a cycle of hate that is eventually going to grow more racism.   Many people say that this is also cultural appropriation, which is never okay. I see cultural appropriation as a great way of sharing one's own cultures and experiences with another. In fact, other fields such as music and dance always take inspiration from other cultures, and are praised for it.   If we really wanted to get rid of racism, oppression, and discrimination, we need to focus on the actual problems. The problems that black people with cornrows are facing in the workplace, etc. Not creating more racism by oppressing other races who simply want to express themselves, the same way that black people tend to want these days.","c_root_id_A":"fy1otjz","c_root_id_B":"fy1s8l2","created_at_utc_A":1594741871,"created_at_utc_B":1594743558,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'm all honesty, it seems like sort of a ridiculous issue going both ways. Do you think you are in an environment where people are likely to take offense to your chosen hairstyle?  Don't get it the  them; its just a considerate thing to do. Don't do something that you know offends people.   On the other hand, I think that if you know filing a complaint could get someone sanctioncted or fired for a haircut, maybe just simply talk to them privately first before going to HR; consider that they could lose their job. Getting someone publicly shamed\/disciplined for the way they chose to style their hair does seem more confrontational rather then a way to try to reconcile.   I'm not American, nor am I black, so I'm just a foreigner commenting with observed  thoughts, but I hope they have been at least a little bit productive.","human_ref_B":"While I'm not a fan of the \"cornrows are cultural appropriation\" stuff, the idea that it's an example of \"fighting racism with racism\" is a bit off.   To some degree, this is a semantic issue - discrimination based on race is certainly part of the dictionary definition of race, and double standards about hair styles meet that definition.   However, when people talk racism as a problem, they're generally referring to social injustices rather than any example of distinctions made based on race.  People don't call it \"racist\" when someone hires black models in order to sell clothes to black people, or that products get developed for and marketed to black people in the first place.  Similarly, when people talk about \"fighting racism\" they tend not to just cover eliminating active discrimination, but also promoting social integration.  The institutions in the US were mostly established when white and black people were separated, so a lot of rules are set up with out consideration for black people.  For example, army grooming regulations might not fit typical black hair and beards very well, because they were set up when there were no black people in the army.  So, to have an equitable society, it makes sense to look at ways in which black people are typically sensitive and white people are not, and see whether it makes sense to accommodate those sensitivities.  Otherwise things that look like \"the same rules for everyone\" in theory end up contributing to institutional discrimination.  I think that the complaints about cultural appropriation with respect to hairstyles tend to be about sensitivity issues like that.  The fact that black hair doesn't really fit nicely into a world of hairstyles for white people will make black people self-conscious about their hair, and turns hair into a facet of identity.  And, when particular hairstyles become part of people's black identity, those people are upset or uncomfortable when they see white people with the same hairstyle.   So when white people casually wear cornrows, it can be upsetting to black people.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1687.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"hr3sik","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Not allowing non-black people wear cornrows is fighting racism with racism In American history, black people who wore cornrows were oppressed against for wearing them. They are often fired from the workplace, maybe not allowed to graduate, and are seen as thuggish. Black people wear it to remember their culture, celebrate it, or express themselves stylistically. The problem these days seem to still involve discrimination and oppression for simply wearing them.  These days when non-black people wear them, they get huge backlash for cultural appropriation, for not understanding the significance, etc. They get hate for wearing cornrows. In my eyes, this is the idea of fighting racism with racism. Oppressing other cultures through cultural criticism and unfair treatment by saying \"you're not black so you can't wear them\". This idea feeds into a cycle of hate that is eventually going to grow more racism.   Many people say that this is also cultural appropriation, which is never okay. I see cultural appropriation as a great way of sharing one's own cultures and experiences with another. In fact, other fields such as music and dance always take inspiration from other cultures, and are praised for it.   If we really wanted to get rid of racism, oppression, and discrimination, we need to focus on the actual problems. The problems that black people with cornrows are facing in the workplace, etc. Not creating more racism by oppressing other races who simply want to express themselves, the same way that black people tend to want these days.","c_root_id_A":"fy1otjz","c_root_id_B":"fy1tcee","created_at_utc_A":1594741871,"created_at_utc_B":1594744093,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'm all honesty, it seems like sort of a ridiculous issue going both ways. Do you think you are in an environment where people are likely to take offense to your chosen hairstyle?  Don't get it the  them; its just a considerate thing to do. Don't do something that you know offends people.   On the other hand, I think that if you know filing a complaint could get someone sanctioncted or fired for a haircut, maybe just simply talk to them privately first before going to HR; consider that they could lose their job. Getting someone publicly shamed\/disciplined for the way they chose to style their hair does seem more confrontational rather then a way to try to reconcile.   I'm not American, nor am I black, so I'm just a foreigner commenting with observed  thoughts, but I hope they have been at least a little bit productive.","human_ref_B":"The _actual problem_ here is that a white person can wear cornrows without carrying the cultural attachments that come with it for the black person - e.g. a black person selects that hairstyle and they are a thug and white person does it and they are making a fashion statement, or being super-cool.    So..this is a person who is taking a thing that has a ethnic heritage you are (or ought be) aware of and shedding the baggage simply because they are white.  I can judge that choice and doing so doesn't make me racist, it makes me have an opinion about one's use of cultural \"products\" that are bound up in complex ways with race.  But...we really have to stop calling all things that offer some opinion and come within 10 feet of an idea of race \"racist\" - it's a disservice to that word and to those who are impacted severely by social and structural racism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2222.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"hr3sik","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Not allowing non-black people wear cornrows is fighting racism with racism In American history, black people who wore cornrows were oppressed against for wearing them. They are often fired from the workplace, maybe not allowed to graduate, and are seen as thuggish. Black people wear it to remember their culture, celebrate it, or express themselves stylistically. The problem these days seem to still involve discrimination and oppression for simply wearing them.  These days when non-black people wear them, they get huge backlash for cultural appropriation, for not understanding the significance, etc. They get hate for wearing cornrows. In my eyes, this is the idea of fighting racism with racism. Oppressing other cultures through cultural criticism and unfair treatment by saying \"you're not black so you can't wear them\". This idea feeds into a cycle of hate that is eventually going to grow more racism.   Many people say that this is also cultural appropriation, which is never okay. I see cultural appropriation as a great way of sharing one's own cultures and experiences with another. In fact, other fields such as music and dance always take inspiration from other cultures, and are praised for it.   If we really wanted to get rid of racism, oppression, and discrimination, we need to focus on the actual problems. The problems that black people with cornrows are facing in the workplace, etc. Not creating more racism by oppressing other races who simply want to express themselves, the same way that black people tend to want these days.","c_root_id_A":"fy1tcee","c_root_id_B":"fy1sbmd","created_at_utc_A":1594744093,"created_at_utc_B":1594743599,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The _actual problem_ here is that a white person can wear cornrows without carrying the cultural attachments that come with it for the black person - e.g. a black person selects that hairstyle and they are a thug and white person does it and they are making a fashion statement, or being super-cool.    So..this is a person who is taking a thing that has a ethnic heritage you are (or ought be) aware of and shedding the baggage simply because they are white.  I can judge that choice and doing so doesn't make me racist, it makes me have an opinion about one's use of cultural \"products\" that are bound up in complex ways with race.  But...we really have to stop calling all things that offer some opinion and come within 10 feet of an idea of race \"racist\" - it's a disservice to that word and to those who are impacted severely by social and structural racism.","human_ref_B":"What you are describing is just a matter of people exercising their own judgment and finding something distasteful.  Black culture has always been associated with the socioeconomic and political struggles of black people, so when a white person appropriates the culture it seems like they are taking something that hasn\u2019t been earned, or trying to elbow their way into a culture with a superficial token of that culture without having a real understanding of that culture\u2019s history or values.  People are not seeing this sort of thing and carefully analyzing whether it is moral or not, nor does anyone see this as a pressing political issue that needs to be addressed legally.  Rather, what they see immediately rubs them the wrong way for very understandable reasons, and sometimes they express that.  Are you saying that people should not be free to express such judgments?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":494.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"hr3sik","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Not allowing non-black people wear cornrows is fighting racism with racism In American history, black people who wore cornrows were oppressed against for wearing them. They are often fired from the workplace, maybe not allowed to graduate, and are seen as thuggish. Black people wear it to remember their culture, celebrate it, or express themselves stylistically. The problem these days seem to still involve discrimination and oppression for simply wearing them.  These days when non-black people wear them, they get huge backlash for cultural appropriation, for not understanding the significance, etc. They get hate for wearing cornrows. In my eyes, this is the idea of fighting racism with racism. Oppressing other cultures through cultural criticism and unfair treatment by saying \"you're not black so you can't wear them\". This idea feeds into a cycle of hate that is eventually going to grow more racism.   Many people say that this is also cultural appropriation, which is never okay. I see cultural appropriation as a great way of sharing one's own cultures and experiences with another. In fact, other fields such as music and dance always take inspiration from other cultures, and are praised for it.   If we really wanted to get rid of racism, oppression, and discrimination, we need to focus on the actual problems. The problems that black people with cornrows are facing in the workplace, etc. Not creating more racism by oppressing other races who simply want to express themselves, the same way that black people tend to want these days.","c_root_id_A":"fy25d2t","c_root_id_B":"fy1otjz","created_at_utc_A":1594749792,"created_at_utc_B":1594741871,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"For clarification, I don't care much about cultural appropriation, I don't like the concept and I think overall it's ridiculous. I'm mixed black which comes with it's own set of problem but my hair is thick as fuck and cornrows is one of the only hair styles I can actually do haha, so I have experience with that. I'm gonna try and stick with white people \"appropriating\" black styles for simplicity.  However, I talked to my roommate about this very thing and she made some good points. Look black people and ethnic groups for that matter have gotten a lot of shit for hairstyles, to the point where it affects their life. You can look up plenty of news stories of schools fucking with black kids because of dreddlocks or cornrows.  These styles are natural fitted for people with really thick hair aka black people, shit my hair naturally dredds because of its thickness and cornrows is one of the few styles I can do without chemically straighting it . Yet there seems to be a stigma about it. And of it's styled correctly it looks very professional, it's not like a spiked up Mohawk, its professional looking, compact and beautiful. Yet its stigmatized for black people and takes on a different less stigmatized meaning when white people adopt it.   Don't get wrong, white people look good with  cornrows, but its not right that you stigmatized an entire style for the group of people that's it's natural for then use it for yourself, it's like if they can't use it then you shouldn't be doing it either. And I think that's where the problem arises, black people get shit for hairstyles that are in tune with the kind of hair they have, and then white ass people \"appropriating\" it are getting praises. And to see this stigma all you have to Google is \"school dreddlocks or cornrows\" or some other variation.  And if you think black people aren't stigmatized systemically they literally passed a law in a FEW states called the crown act, which is a natural hairstyle discrimination ban laws, last fucking year. So that just tells you that 1. There is still that stigma in the majority of states 2. Up until last year, it wasn't even addressed.  So you can't blame people for falling back on that idea of appropriation, the community has gotten a lot of shit and suddenly white people start using it and now it's \"okay\". It sits bad on the tongue","human_ref_B":"I'm all honesty, it seems like sort of a ridiculous issue going both ways. Do you think you are in an environment where people are likely to take offense to your chosen hairstyle?  Don't get it the  them; its just a considerate thing to do. Don't do something that you know offends people.   On the other hand, I think that if you know filing a complaint could get someone sanctioncted or fired for a haircut, maybe just simply talk to them privately first before going to HR; consider that they could lose their job. Getting someone publicly shamed\/disciplined for the way they chose to style their hair does seem more confrontational rather then a way to try to reconcile.   I'm not American, nor am I black, so I'm just a foreigner commenting with observed  thoughts, but I hope they have been at least a little bit productive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7921.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hr3sik","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Not allowing non-black people wear cornrows is fighting racism with racism In American history, black people who wore cornrows were oppressed against for wearing them. They are often fired from the workplace, maybe not allowed to graduate, and are seen as thuggish. Black people wear it to remember their culture, celebrate it, or express themselves stylistically. The problem these days seem to still involve discrimination and oppression for simply wearing them.  These days when non-black people wear them, they get huge backlash for cultural appropriation, for not understanding the significance, etc. They get hate for wearing cornrows. In my eyes, this is the idea of fighting racism with racism. Oppressing other cultures through cultural criticism and unfair treatment by saying \"you're not black so you can't wear them\". This idea feeds into a cycle of hate that is eventually going to grow more racism.   Many people say that this is also cultural appropriation, which is never okay. I see cultural appropriation as a great way of sharing one's own cultures and experiences with another. In fact, other fields such as music and dance always take inspiration from other cultures, and are praised for it.   If we really wanted to get rid of racism, oppression, and discrimination, we need to focus on the actual problems. The problems that black people with cornrows are facing in the workplace, etc. Not creating more racism by oppressing other races who simply want to express themselves, the same way that black people tend to want these days.","c_root_id_A":"fy1sbmd","c_root_id_B":"fy25d2t","created_at_utc_A":1594743599,"created_at_utc_B":1594749792,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What you are describing is just a matter of people exercising their own judgment and finding something distasteful.  Black culture has always been associated with the socioeconomic and political struggles of black people, so when a white person appropriates the culture it seems like they are taking something that hasn\u2019t been earned, or trying to elbow their way into a culture with a superficial token of that culture without having a real understanding of that culture\u2019s history or values.  People are not seeing this sort of thing and carefully analyzing whether it is moral or not, nor does anyone see this as a pressing political issue that needs to be addressed legally.  Rather, what they see immediately rubs them the wrong way for very understandable reasons, and sometimes they express that.  Are you saying that people should not be free to express such judgments?","human_ref_B":"For clarification, I don't care much about cultural appropriation, I don't like the concept and I think overall it's ridiculous. I'm mixed black which comes with it's own set of problem but my hair is thick as fuck and cornrows is one of the only hair styles I can actually do haha, so I have experience with that. I'm gonna try and stick with white people \"appropriating\" black styles for simplicity.  However, I talked to my roommate about this very thing and she made some good points. Look black people and ethnic groups for that matter have gotten a lot of shit for hairstyles, to the point where it affects their life. You can look up plenty of news stories of schools fucking with black kids because of dreddlocks or cornrows.  These styles are natural fitted for people with really thick hair aka black people, shit my hair naturally dredds because of its thickness and cornrows is one of the few styles I can do without chemically straighting it . Yet there seems to be a stigma about it. And of it's styled correctly it looks very professional, it's not like a spiked up Mohawk, its professional looking, compact and beautiful. Yet its stigmatized for black people and takes on a different less stigmatized meaning when white people adopt it.   Don't get wrong, white people look good with  cornrows, but its not right that you stigmatized an entire style for the group of people that's it's natural for then use it for yourself, it's like if they can't use it then you shouldn't be doing it either. And I think that's where the problem arises, black people get shit for hairstyles that are in tune with the kind of hair they have, and then white ass people \"appropriating\" it are getting praises. And to see this stigma all you have to Google is \"school dreddlocks or cornrows\" or some other variation.  And if you think black people aren't stigmatized systemically they literally passed a law in a FEW states called the crown act, which is a natural hairstyle discrimination ban laws, last fucking year. So that just tells you that 1. There is still that stigma in the majority of states 2. Up until last year, it wasn't even addressed.  So you can't blame people for falling back on that idea of appropriation, the community has gotten a lot of shit and suddenly white people start using it and now it's \"okay\". It sits bad on the tongue","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6193.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hr3sik","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Not allowing non-black people wear cornrows is fighting racism with racism In American history, black people who wore cornrows were oppressed against for wearing them. They are often fired from the workplace, maybe not allowed to graduate, and are seen as thuggish. Black people wear it to remember their culture, celebrate it, or express themselves stylistically. The problem these days seem to still involve discrimination and oppression for simply wearing them.  These days when non-black people wear them, they get huge backlash for cultural appropriation, for not understanding the significance, etc. They get hate for wearing cornrows. In my eyes, this is the idea of fighting racism with racism. Oppressing other cultures through cultural criticism and unfair treatment by saying \"you're not black so you can't wear them\". This idea feeds into a cycle of hate that is eventually going to grow more racism.   Many people say that this is also cultural appropriation, which is never okay. I see cultural appropriation as a great way of sharing one's own cultures and experiences with another. In fact, other fields such as music and dance always take inspiration from other cultures, and are praised for it.   If we really wanted to get rid of racism, oppression, and discrimination, we need to focus on the actual problems. The problems that black people with cornrows are facing in the workplace, etc. Not creating more racism by oppressing other races who simply want to express themselves, the same way that black people tend to want these days.","c_root_id_A":"fy1xf91","c_root_id_B":"fy1otjz","created_at_utc_A":1594746050,"created_at_utc_B":1594741871,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If you are sensitive to the history and culture you should be allowed to wear them, however most people aren\u2019t and there have been some major issues regarding corn rows.   1. There have been attempts to rename them and use them without understanding the history\/culture behind them.   2. Punishing black people for wearing them isn\u2019t a thing of the past, it is still happening. There are still schools that don\u2019t allow cornrows. People are still told it looks \u201cunprofessional\u201d.  All in all, non-blacks consider it a trend and a fun thing to do with their hair. Most don\u2019t consider it an everyday thing or something they will live with most of their life. Black people consider it a part of their culture and are still being looked down upon in certain situations for it. Most of the time there is no appreciation for the culture or the struggles when non-black people wear corn rows.   One day we may get to a place wear everyone can wear them respectfully, but we aren\u2019t there yet.","human_ref_B":"I'm all honesty, it seems like sort of a ridiculous issue going both ways. Do you think you are in an environment where people are likely to take offense to your chosen hairstyle?  Don't get it the  them; its just a considerate thing to do. Don't do something that you know offends people.   On the other hand, I think that if you know filing a complaint could get someone sanctioncted or fired for a haircut, maybe just simply talk to them privately first before going to HR; consider that they could lose their job. Getting someone publicly shamed\/disciplined for the way they chose to style their hair does seem more confrontational rather then a way to try to reconcile.   I'm not American, nor am I black, so I'm just a foreigner commenting with observed  thoughts, but I hope they have been at least a little bit productive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4179.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"hr3sik","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Not allowing non-black people wear cornrows is fighting racism with racism In American history, black people who wore cornrows were oppressed against for wearing them. They are often fired from the workplace, maybe not allowed to graduate, and are seen as thuggish. Black people wear it to remember their culture, celebrate it, or express themselves stylistically. The problem these days seem to still involve discrimination and oppression for simply wearing them.  These days when non-black people wear them, they get huge backlash for cultural appropriation, for not understanding the significance, etc. They get hate for wearing cornrows. In my eyes, this is the idea of fighting racism with racism. Oppressing other cultures through cultural criticism and unfair treatment by saying \"you're not black so you can't wear them\". This idea feeds into a cycle of hate that is eventually going to grow more racism.   Many people say that this is also cultural appropriation, which is never okay. I see cultural appropriation as a great way of sharing one's own cultures and experiences with another. In fact, other fields such as music and dance always take inspiration from other cultures, and are praised for it.   If we really wanted to get rid of racism, oppression, and discrimination, we need to focus on the actual problems. The problems that black people with cornrows are facing in the workplace, etc. Not creating more racism by oppressing other races who simply want to express themselves, the same way that black people tend to want these days.","c_root_id_A":"fy1xf91","c_root_id_B":"fy1sbmd","created_at_utc_A":1594746050,"created_at_utc_B":1594743599,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If you are sensitive to the history and culture you should be allowed to wear them, however most people aren\u2019t and there have been some major issues regarding corn rows.   1. There have been attempts to rename them and use them without understanding the history\/culture behind them.   2. Punishing black people for wearing them isn\u2019t a thing of the past, it is still happening. There are still schools that don\u2019t allow cornrows. People are still told it looks \u201cunprofessional\u201d.  All in all, non-blacks consider it a trend and a fun thing to do with their hair. Most don\u2019t consider it an everyday thing or something they will live with most of their life. Black people consider it a part of their culture and are still being looked down upon in certain situations for it. Most of the time there is no appreciation for the culture or the struggles when non-black people wear corn rows.   One day we may get to a place wear everyone can wear them respectfully, but we aren\u2019t there yet.","human_ref_B":"What you are describing is just a matter of people exercising their own judgment and finding something distasteful.  Black culture has always been associated with the socioeconomic and political struggles of black people, so when a white person appropriates the culture it seems like they are taking something that hasn\u2019t been earned, or trying to elbow their way into a culture with a superficial token of that culture without having a real understanding of that culture\u2019s history or values.  People are not seeing this sort of thing and carefully analyzing whether it is moral or not, nor does anyone see this as a pressing political issue that needs to be addressed legally.  Rather, what they see immediately rubs them the wrong way for very understandable reasons, and sometimes they express that.  Are you saying that people should not be free to express such judgments?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2451.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"hr3sik","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Not allowing non-black people wear cornrows is fighting racism with racism In American history, black people who wore cornrows were oppressed against for wearing them. They are often fired from the workplace, maybe not allowed to graduate, and are seen as thuggish. Black people wear it to remember their culture, celebrate it, or express themselves stylistically. The problem these days seem to still involve discrimination and oppression for simply wearing them.  These days when non-black people wear them, they get huge backlash for cultural appropriation, for not understanding the significance, etc. They get hate for wearing cornrows. In my eyes, this is the idea of fighting racism with racism. Oppressing other cultures through cultural criticism and unfair treatment by saying \"you're not black so you can't wear them\". This idea feeds into a cycle of hate that is eventually going to grow more racism.   Many people say that this is also cultural appropriation, which is never okay. I see cultural appropriation as a great way of sharing one's own cultures and experiences with another. In fact, other fields such as music and dance always take inspiration from other cultures, and are praised for it.   If we really wanted to get rid of racism, oppression, and discrimination, we need to focus on the actual problems. The problems that black people with cornrows are facing in the workplace, etc. Not creating more racism by oppressing other races who simply want to express themselves, the same way that black people tend to want these days.","c_root_id_A":"fy2rvci","c_root_id_B":"fy1otjz","created_at_utc_A":1594760491,"created_at_utc_B":1594741871,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I would argue that there is a distinction between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation, there is another divide between what is appropriate and what is allowed, and that certain things hold a sacred space that other groups cannot fully respect by virtue of cultural difference.   1) Cultural appreciation happens when one has done an in depth study of, immersion in, and deep respect for another culture. Many Jewish People I know appreciate hip-hop to such an extent that their depth of knowledge far surpasses mine. If they use hip-hop (rap or dance) to express truths evident to them while simultaneously remaining aware of what they can and can\u2019t do (because they\u2019ve already immersed themselves in the culture) then it\u2019s ok.  I know another person who is a university lecturer on a specific African Ethno-majority group and it is ok for him (having done 20+ years of living in that culture) to use slang that would otherwise be allowed to native speakers. Cultural appreciation is not appropriate for all instances especially in terms of sacred wear, funeral practices, growing practices, and culture specific sacred spaces. I can appreciate Japanese literary culture but I cannot have a Japanese style funeral.   2) Black hair is a previously desecrated sacred space. The original trauma of slavery included a banning of elaborate hairstyles by the enslaved and a separation of people who came from the same culture (hair is a marker of where you came from as well). While that particular iteration of slavery has ended, Black folk have been told to change their hair, that their hair smells, that their hair is inappropriate....etc.   The doing of hair is a sacred act between parent and child, auntie and child, favorite neighborhood hairdresser and child. This space was violated by the previously mentioned history of people disrespecting these hair styles. The disrespect primary came from those with \u201cwhite\u201d phenotypes. When those people with \u201cwhite\u201d phenotypes insist they can wear their hair, hair that does not typically need the protective hair styles of black people, in the same style as black people, it doesn\u2019t feel like appreciation. Appreciation would understand the history of black hair, the desecration of that space, and allow black culture to rebuild and relish that space without insisting that one has to be a part of it. There are many braids that not-exclusively Black. Dutch braids are very similar to Boxer Braids but I think they don\u2019t cross the line into appropriation. Same as Viking, single plait, dreads aren\u2019t appropriating Rastafarian dreads. Therefore to wear Rastafarian dreads and Corn rows is a deliberate insistence to go into a black sacred space that has been desecrated by Europeans and then white Americans. Which again doesn\u2019t feel like appreciation but rather appropriation. When you add the fact that people with mixed\/white phenotypes get positive attention for doing something people deride Black people for.....the emotions engendered don\u2019t make the culture you think you are participating in actually appreciate your participation.","human_ref_B":"I'm all honesty, it seems like sort of a ridiculous issue going both ways. Do you think you are in an environment where people are likely to take offense to your chosen hairstyle?  Don't get it the  them; its just a considerate thing to do. Don't do something that you know offends people.   On the other hand, I think that if you know filing a complaint could get someone sanctioncted or fired for a haircut, maybe just simply talk to them privately first before going to HR; consider that they could lose their job. Getting someone publicly shamed\/disciplined for the way they chose to style their hair does seem more confrontational rather then a way to try to reconcile.   I'm not American, nor am I black, so I'm just a foreigner commenting with observed  thoughts, but I hope they have been at least a little bit productive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18620.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"hr3sik","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Not allowing non-black people wear cornrows is fighting racism with racism In American history, black people who wore cornrows were oppressed against for wearing them. They are often fired from the workplace, maybe not allowed to graduate, and are seen as thuggish. Black people wear it to remember their culture, celebrate it, or express themselves stylistically. The problem these days seem to still involve discrimination and oppression for simply wearing them.  These days when non-black people wear them, they get huge backlash for cultural appropriation, for not understanding the significance, etc. They get hate for wearing cornrows. In my eyes, this is the idea of fighting racism with racism. Oppressing other cultures through cultural criticism and unfair treatment by saying \"you're not black so you can't wear them\". This idea feeds into a cycle of hate that is eventually going to grow more racism.   Many people say that this is also cultural appropriation, which is never okay. I see cultural appropriation as a great way of sharing one's own cultures and experiences with another. In fact, other fields such as music and dance always take inspiration from other cultures, and are praised for it.   If we really wanted to get rid of racism, oppression, and discrimination, we need to focus on the actual problems. The problems that black people with cornrows are facing in the workplace, etc. Not creating more racism by oppressing other races who simply want to express themselves, the same way that black people tend to want these days.","c_root_id_A":"fy2rvci","c_root_id_B":"fy1sbmd","created_at_utc_A":1594760491,"created_at_utc_B":1594743599,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I would argue that there is a distinction between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation, there is another divide between what is appropriate and what is allowed, and that certain things hold a sacred space that other groups cannot fully respect by virtue of cultural difference.   1) Cultural appreciation happens when one has done an in depth study of, immersion in, and deep respect for another culture. Many Jewish People I know appreciate hip-hop to such an extent that their depth of knowledge far surpasses mine. If they use hip-hop (rap or dance) to express truths evident to them while simultaneously remaining aware of what they can and can\u2019t do (because they\u2019ve already immersed themselves in the culture) then it\u2019s ok.  I know another person who is a university lecturer on a specific African Ethno-majority group and it is ok for him (having done 20+ years of living in that culture) to use slang that would otherwise be allowed to native speakers. Cultural appreciation is not appropriate for all instances especially in terms of sacred wear, funeral practices, growing practices, and culture specific sacred spaces. I can appreciate Japanese literary culture but I cannot have a Japanese style funeral.   2) Black hair is a previously desecrated sacred space. The original trauma of slavery included a banning of elaborate hairstyles by the enslaved and a separation of people who came from the same culture (hair is a marker of where you came from as well). While that particular iteration of slavery has ended, Black folk have been told to change their hair, that their hair smells, that their hair is inappropriate....etc.   The doing of hair is a sacred act between parent and child, auntie and child, favorite neighborhood hairdresser and child. This space was violated by the previously mentioned history of people disrespecting these hair styles. The disrespect primary came from those with \u201cwhite\u201d phenotypes. When those people with \u201cwhite\u201d phenotypes insist they can wear their hair, hair that does not typically need the protective hair styles of black people, in the same style as black people, it doesn\u2019t feel like appreciation. Appreciation would understand the history of black hair, the desecration of that space, and allow black culture to rebuild and relish that space without insisting that one has to be a part of it. There are many braids that not-exclusively Black. Dutch braids are very similar to Boxer Braids but I think they don\u2019t cross the line into appropriation. Same as Viking, single plait, dreads aren\u2019t appropriating Rastafarian dreads. Therefore to wear Rastafarian dreads and Corn rows is a deliberate insistence to go into a black sacred space that has been desecrated by Europeans and then white Americans. Which again doesn\u2019t feel like appreciation but rather appropriation. When you add the fact that people with mixed\/white phenotypes get positive attention for doing something people deride Black people for.....the emotions engendered don\u2019t make the culture you think you are participating in actually appreciate your participation.","human_ref_B":"What you are describing is just a matter of people exercising their own judgment and finding something distasteful.  Black culture has always been associated with the socioeconomic and political struggles of black people, so when a white person appropriates the culture it seems like they are taking something that hasn\u2019t been earned, or trying to elbow their way into a culture with a superficial token of that culture without having a real understanding of that culture\u2019s history or values.  People are not seeing this sort of thing and carefully analyzing whether it is moral or not, nor does anyone see this as a pressing political issue that needs to be addressed legally.  Rather, what they see immediately rubs them the wrong way for very understandable reasons, and sometimes they express that.  Are you saying that people should not be free to express such judgments?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16892.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"upvkbr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: Spectators of a livestream who join with intent to watch massacre should be prosecuted I have a view that I feel in the wake of the shooting that I think makes sense, but am willing to have my mind changed. I read somewhere that the shooter was scoping his targets for up to twenty minutes before finally shooting, with at least 20 spectators in the livestream. I don't know if this is true and the CMV does not deal with the facts of this particular massacre, rather it deals with the general case where an illegal act is livestreamed with actual spectators in the platform  I believe the following:   Assuming there were spectators to a livestream that recorded illegal acts like mass shootings or lynchings:  1. Law enforcement should be empowered to subpoena the website hosting the livestream to compel the website\/platform to provide data relating to the livestream (IP Addresses, date of the livestream and any other identifying information about the author of the livestream ***as well as the spectators***) 2. There should be a **severe** legal penalty if it can be proven, as a result of this subpoena, for people who watched a livestream with full knowledge of what was to transpire who did not a good faith attempt to inform law enforcement (where someone's digital footprint demonstrates that they knew of the plans of the attack, encouraged it and did not act upon that information). 3. I do not know if there is a law that deals specifically with spectators. If there is such a law, I believe that that law should be modified to further increase the penalties whatever those penalties currently are  For the purpose of this CMV, I am defining spectator as those who *(1) watch a livestream of an illegal act, such as a massacre or assault, (2) who had prior knowledge that such an act would be committed and (3) made no good faith attempt to contact law enforcement.*   I tried Googling about the legalities of watching \"illegal livestreams\" but all I got were articles about watching illegally obtained copyright materials. The only article I could find was this which deals specifically with California, citing failure to report a crime as a misdemeanor. This is ***INADEQUATE*** and **my CMV calls for something more punitive and expansive such as a federal statute with penalties requiring more than 10 years incarceration and penalties much higher than $1000.**  I am willing to have my view changed and considered the following counterpoints:   **Privacy**  However, I think if we were to transpose the digital situation into a real life situation, I think people who were physically present who went out of there way to watch an illegal commission of an act with knowledge beforehand that the act was going to transpire, I think law enforcement is empowered to prosecute those spectators. Similarly, if an IP Address or other digital foot print can be linked to a person who entered a livestream with the intent to an illegal act, they should be similarly prosecuted.  This would require that companies provide more information about the user: their login and chat history. But I feel that punishing those who watch massacres as entertainment would be a net benefit for society. And the subpoena power would be scoped to just that livestream and the information of the users who view that livestream.  **Is it reasonable to expect platforms to provide this information?**  I think it is. Platforms should provide whatever they have. My CMV does not compel platforms to acquire information about users: just that they provide whatever they have upon receiving a subpoena which is again scoped to that specific livestream and the relevant meta data of the users.  Even if it were the case that most of the spectators use technologies or methods to obfuscate their identity or digital footprint, I still think it would be a social good to compel platforms to provide whatever they have about the spectators of the livestream. Hopefully at least one or a few spectators can be punished. Shaming the few we can catch will be a net good for society and hopefully their pathology can be better understood.   **If you don't know what the penalties are, why increase them?**  I think increasing the penalties (if they don't exist for spectators of these livestreams) should be increased to send a message. People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.   I would be willing to change my mind on this specific point if 1. there is already a law addressing spectators AND the law is so punitive that a convincing case can be made that increasing the penalties will do little to deter the act itself or the desire to watch it unfold.   **How punitive is too punitive? Your calls for punishment is not proportional to the act which is merely spectating a crime**  I think in light of the social dynamics of these massacres, we need to rethink the seriousness of \"just spectating\" a livestream of a massacre (again, with full knowledge that a massacre is or is about to unfold). Misdemeanor levels of punishment is inadequate. We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms. Most will not report\u2014my CMV calls for empowering law enforcement and our statutes to forcibly compel platforms to provide metadata and punish spectators as well as the perpetrator. Increasing the punishment will provide a net beneficial value to society by letting users know that by even watching a massacre, law enforcement will have the legal tools to find and identify you.   **Would your view include those who did make a good faith attempt but for whatever reason cannot provide evidence that they made an attempt to contact law enforcement?**  This is one of the more difficult parts of my view. I think those people should not be prosecuted. But even if my view results in very few cases where people can be convicted, I think it is a good standard to set on principle\u2014if the various elements of a spectator with prior knowledge and further evidence that no good faith attempt was made, we need to increase those penalties, even if it is very hard to prove all of these facts.  Again, these are just my initial feelings upon hearing the news today about Buffalo. A small part of me feels that my view may be ill considered in the long term but I would like to understand why. Right now, I feel empowering the state to go after spectators is incredibly important.","c_root_id_A":"i8ncxfi","c_root_id_B":"i8ne70l","created_at_utc_A":1652580467,"created_at_utc_B":1652581138,"score_A":43,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"Very little of your view has anything to do specifically with streaming. It boils down to: did someone have foreknowledge of the commission of a crime and fail to report it. The problem becomes *how do you prove someone had foreknowledge of the crime*?  Even if there is data that shows an individual was streaming the violent act (or plans leading up to it etc.) you would need to prove an individual actually witnessed all of it.   For example, how would you differentiate between a person who watched the whole stream, heard threats of violence, thought these threats were real, and did nothing *vs.* someone logs on to a streamer, the stream is going, the viewer suddenly becomes very sick (for other reasons) and runs to the bathroom with violent diarrhea for an hour?  On paper and data records of internet activity these scenarios look exactly the same. The burden of proof would rightfully be very difficult. How do you put the individual in the chair watching and understanding everything that is happening and how do you prove it?","human_ref_B":"To challenge a specific portion of this, \"more than 10 years incarceration\" is frankly insane and I think you're treating prison time waaaaay too flippantly here.  Mass incarceration is terrible and should be used absolutely as sparingly as possible.   It's extremely expensive. It costs way more to house a prisoner per year than the average American pays in taxes, and that's not even counting the indirect losses in terms of lost workers from the labor force.  Frivolous incarceration often increases crime. You take an edgy teen and throw them in prison for 10 years and give them a criminal record. You have both destroyed their employability and also ensured that their closest acquaintances are now all hardened felons, making them much more likely to turn to crime upon release.  And perhaps most importantly, harsh sentences do little if anything to deter crime. Criminals respond much more strongly to *likelihood* of being apprehended, which you can increase through more robust policing, but they are surprisingly unconcerned with the size of the penalty. Except it's actually not all that surprising on closer inspection because anyone who thought there was a realistic likelihood of being caught wouldn't commit the crime to begin with. Humans are terrible at precisely calculating the exact size of tail-end risks with severe ramifications, like 1% chance of a stiff sentence. Put in context, do you think any kid ever would think about the exact prison sentence before signing onto a stream and think \"yeah, 5 years is my cut-off; 10 is too many\"? They likely don't even know the sentencing details.  Even granting that everything else you said in this post is true, a *decade* in prison is at least an order of magnitude too high. That would be draconian by our current standards, which are already far too draconian.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":671.0,"score_ratio":1.2093023256}
+{"post_id":"upvkbr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: Spectators of a livestream who join with intent to watch massacre should be prosecuted I have a view that I feel in the wake of the shooting that I think makes sense, but am willing to have my mind changed. I read somewhere that the shooter was scoping his targets for up to twenty minutes before finally shooting, with at least 20 spectators in the livestream. I don't know if this is true and the CMV does not deal with the facts of this particular massacre, rather it deals with the general case where an illegal act is livestreamed with actual spectators in the platform  I believe the following:   Assuming there were spectators to a livestream that recorded illegal acts like mass shootings or lynchings:  1. Law enforcement should be empowered to subpoena the website hosting the livestream to compel the website\/platform to provide data relating to the livestream (IP Addresses, date of the livestream and any other identifying information about the author of the livestream ***as well as the spectators***) 2. There should be a **severe** legal penalty if it can be proven, as a result of this subpoena, for people who watched a livestream with full knowledge of what was to transpire who did not a good faith attempt to inform law enforcement (where someone's digital footprint demonstrates that they knew of the plans of the attack, encouraged it and did not act upon that information). 3. I do not know if there is a law that deals specifically with spectators. If there is such a law, I believe that that law should be modified to further increase the penalties whatever those penalties currently are  For the purpose of this CMV, I am defining spectator as those who *(1) watch a livestream of an illegal act, such as a massacre or assault, (2) who had prior knowledge that such an act would be committed and (3) made no good faith attempt to contact law enforcement.*   I tried Googling about the legalities of watching \"illegal livestreams\" but all I got were articles about watching illegally obtained copyright materials. The only article I could find was this which deals specifically with California, citing failure to report a crime as a misdemeanor. This is ***INADEQUATE*** and **my CMV calls for something more punitive and expansive such as a federal statute with penalties requiring more than 10 years incarceration and penalties much higher than $1000.**  I am willing to have my view changed and considered the following counterpoints:   **Privacy**  However, I think if we were to transpose the digital situation into a real life situation, I think people who were physically present who went out of there way to watch an illegal commission of an act with knowledge beforehand that the act was going to transpire, I think law enforcement is empowered to prosecute those spectators. Similarly, if an IP Address or other digital foot print can be linked to a person who entered a livestream with the intent to an illegal act, they should be similarly prosecuted.  This would require that companies provide more information about the user: their login and chat history. But I feel that punishing those who watch massacres as entertainment would be a net benefit for society. And the subpoena power would be scoped to just that livestream and the information of the users who view that livestream.  **Is it reasonable to expect platforms to provide this information?**  I think it is. Platforms should provide whatever they have. My CMV does not compel platforms to acquire information about users: just that they provide whatever they have upon receiving a subpoena which is again scoped to that specific livestream and the relevant meta data of the users.  Even if it were the case that most of the spectators use technologies or methods to obfuscate their identity or digital footprint, I still think it would be a social good to compel platforms to provide whatever they have about the spectators of the livestream. Hopefully at least one or a few spectators can be punished. Shaming the few we can catch will be a net good for society and hopefully their pathology can be better understood.   **If you don't know what the penalties are, why increase them?**  I think increasing the penalties (if they don't exist for spectators of these livestreams) should be increased to send a message. People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.   I would be willing to change my mind on this specific point if 1. there is already a law addressing spectators AND the law is so punitive that a convincing case can be made that increasing the penalties will do little to deter the act itself or the desire to watch it unfold.   **How punitive is too punitive? Your calls for punishment is not proportional to the act which is merely spectating a crime**  I think in light of the social dynamics of these massacres, we need to rethink the seriousness of \"just spectating\" a livestream of a massacre (again, with full knowledge that a massacre is or is about to unfold). Misdemeanor levels of punishment is inadequate. We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms. Most will not report\u2014my CMV calls for empowering law enforcement and our statutes to forcibly compel platforms to provide metadata and punish spectators as well as the perpetrator. Increasing the punishment will provide a net beneficial value to society by letting users know that by even watching a massacre, law enforcement will have the legal tools to find and identify you.   **Would your view include those who did make a good faith attempt but for whatever reason cannot provide evidence that they made an attempt to contact law enforcement?**  This is one of the more difficult parts of my view. I think those people should not be prosecuted. But even if my view results in very few cases where people can be convicted, I think it is a good standard to set on principle\u2014if the various elements of a spectator with prior knowledge and further evidence that no good faith attempt was made, we need to increase those penalties, even if it is very hard to prove all of these facts.  Again, these are just my initial feelings upon hearing the news today about Buffalo. A small part of me feels that my view may be ill considered in the long term but I would like to understand why. Right now, I feel empowering the state to go after spectators is incredibly important.","c_root_id_A":"i8ncina","c_root_id_B":"i8ne70l","created_at_utc_A":1652580254,"created_at_utc_B":1652581138,"score_A":11,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"Do you support good Samaritan laws in general?  > We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms.   Based on what standards for reporting? I've seen some dark shit on reddit never remotely considered reporting it, it all mostly seemed legal. To an honest extent.  I've never watched a massacre live, but that shouldn't impact my enjoyment of watching a person pick a fight and lose.","human_ref_B":"To challenge a specific portion of this, \"more than 10 years incarceration\" is frankly insane and I think you're treating prison time waaaaay too flippantly here.  Mass incarceration is terrible and should be used absolutely as sparingly as possible.   It's extremely expensive. It costs way more to house a prisoner per year than the average American pays in taxes, and that's not even counting the indirect losses in terms of lost workers from the labor force.  Frivolous incarceration often increases crime. You take an edgy teen and throw them in prison for 10 years and give them a criminal record. You have both destroyed their employability and also ensured that their closest acquaintances are now all hardened felons, making them much more likely to turn to crime upon release.  And perhaps most importantly, harsh sentences do little if anything to deter crime. Criminals respond much more strongly to *likelihood* of being apprehended, which you can increase through more robust policing, but they are surprisingly unconcerned with the size of the penalty. Except it's actually not all that surprising on closer inspection because anyone who thought there was a realistic likelihood of being caught wouldn't commit the crime to begin with. Humans are terrible at precisely calculating the exact size of tail-end risks with severe ramifications, like 1% chance of a stiff sentence. Put in context, do you think any kid ever would think about the exact prison sentence before signing onto a stream and think \"yeah, 5 years is my cut-off; 10 is too many\"? They likely don't even know the sentencing details.  Even granting that everything else you said in this post is true, a *decade* in prison is at least an order of magnitude too high. That would be draconian by our current standards, which are already far too draconian.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":884.0,"score_ratio":4.7272727273}
+{"post_id":"upvkbr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: Spectators of a livestream who join with intent to watch massacre should be prosecuted I have a view that I feel in the wake of the shooting that I think makes sense, but am willing to have my mind changed. I read somewhere that the shooter was scoping his targets for up to twenty minutes before finally shooting, with at least 20 spectators in the livestream. I don't know if this is true and the CMV does not deal with the facts of this particular massacre, rather it deals with the general case where an illegal act is livestreamed with actual spectators in the platform  I believe the following:   Assuming there were spectators to a livestream that recorded illegal acts like mass shootings or lynchings:  1. Law enforcement should be empowered to subpoena the website hosting the livestream to compel the website\/platform to provide data relating to the livestream (IP Addresses, date of the livestream and any other identifying information about the author of the livestream ***as well as the spectators***) 2. There should be a **severe** legal penalty if it can be proven, as a result of this subpoena, for people who watched a livestream with full knowledge of what was to transpire who did not a good faith attempt to inform law enforcement (where someone's digital footprint demonstrates that they knew of the plans of the attack, encouraged it and did not act upon that information). 3. I do not know if there is a law that deals specifically with spectators. If there is such a law, I believe that that law should be modified to further increase the penalties whatever those penalties currently are  For the purpose of this CMV, I am defining spectator as those who *(1) watch a livestream of an illegal act, such as a massacre or assault, (2) who had prior knowledge that such an act would be committed and (3) made no good faith attempt to contact law enforcement.*   I tried Googling about the legalities of watching \"illegal livestreams\" but all I got were articles about watching illegally obtained copyright materials. The only article I could find was this which deals specifically with California, citing failure to report a crime as a misdemeanor. This is ***INADEQUATE*** and **my CMV calls for something more punitive and expansive such as a federal statute with penalties requiring more than 10 years incarceration and penalties much higher than $1000.**  I am willing to have my view changed and considered the following counterpoints:   **Privacy**  However, I think if we were to transpose the digital situation into a real life situation, I think people who were physically present who went out of there way to watch an illegal commission of an act with knowledge beforehand that the act was going to transpire, I think law enforcement is empowered to prosecute those spectators. Similarly, if an IP Address or other digital foot print can be linked to a person who entered a livestream with the intent to an illegal act, they should be similarly prosecuted.  This would require that companies provide more information about the user: their login and chat history. But I feel that punishing those who watch massacres as entertainment would be a net benefit for society. And the subpoena power would be scoped to just that livestream and the information of the users who view that livestream.  **Is it reasonable to expect platforms to provide this information?**  I think it is. Platforms should provide whatever they have. My CMV does not compel platforms to acquire information about users: just that they provide whatever they have upon receiving a subpoena which is again scoped to that specific livestream and the relevant meta data of the users.  Even if it were the case that most of the spectators use technologies or methods to obfuscate their identity or digital footprint, I still think it would be a social good to compel platforms to provide whatever they have about the spectators of the livestream. Hopefully at least one or a few spectators can be punished. Shaming the few we can catch will be a net good for society and hopefully their pathology can be better understood.   **If you don't know what the penalties are, why increase them?**  I think increasing the penalties (if they don't exist for spectators of these livestreams) should be increased to send a message. People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.   I would be willing to change my mind on this specific point if 1. there is already a law addressing spectators AND the law is so punitive that a convincing case can be made that increasing the penalties will do little to deter the act itself or the desire to watch it unfold.   **How punitive is too punitive? Your calls for punishment is not proportional to the act which is merely spectating a crime**  I think in light of the social dynamics of these massacres, we need to rethink the seriousness of \"just spectating\" a livestream of a massacre (again, with full knowledge that a massacre is or is about to unfold). Misdemeanor levels of punishment is inadequate. We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms. Most will not report\u2014my CMV calls for empowering law enforcement and our statutes to forcibly compel platforms to provide metadata and punish spectators as well as the perpetrator. Increasing the punishment will provide a net beneficial value to society by letting users know that by even watching a massacre, law enforcement will have the legal tools to find and identify you.   **Would your view include those who did make a good faith attempt but for whatever reason cannot provide evidence that they made an attempt to contact law enforcement?**  This is one of the more difficult parts of my view. I think those people should not be prosecuted. But even if my view results in very few cases where people can be convicted, I think it is a good standard to set on principle\u2014if the various elements of a spectator with prior knowledge and further evidence that no good faith attempt was made, we need to increase those penalties, even if it is very hard to prove all of these facts.  Again, these are just my initial feelings upon hearing the news today about Buffalo. A small part of me feels that my view may be ill considered in the long term but I would like to understand why. Right now, I feel empowering the state to go after spectators is incredibly important.","c_root_id_A":"i8nckml","c_root_id_B":"i8ne70l","created_at_utc_A":1652580283,"created_at_utc_B":1652581138,"score_A":8,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"It sounds like what you're really after here is a failure-to-report law, which already exists for some crimes in some states. My state law makes reporting a homicide mandatory, for instance.   Given that your last segment explicitly builds in a caveat anyway as long as you attempt to report the homicide, it seems that most of the details in the title about joining with intent to watch and so forth are extraneous and the best version of this law could be summarized without those frills as \"you are obligated to report homicides that you are demonstrably aware of.\"","human_ref_B":"To challenge a specific portion of this, \"more than 10 years incarceration\" is frankly insane and I think you're treating prison time waaaaay too flippantly here.  Mass incarceration is terrible and should be used absolutely as sparingly as possible.   It's extremely expensive. It costs way more to house a prisoner per year than the average American pays in taxes, and that's not even counting the indirect losses in terms of lost workers from the labor force.  Frivolous incarceration often increases crime. You take an edgy teen and throw them in prison for 10 years and give them a criminal record. You have both destroyed their employability and also ensured that their closest acquaintances are now all hardened felons, making them much more likely to turn to crime upon release.  And perhaps most importantly, harsh sentences do little if anything to deter crime. Criminals respond much more strongly to *likelihood* of being apprehended, which you can increase through more robust policing, but they are surprisingly unconcerned with the size of the penalty. Except it's actually not all that surprising on closer inspection because anyone who thought there was a realistic likelihood of being caught wouldn't commit the crime to begin with. Humans are terrible at precisely calculating the exact size of tail-end risks with severe ramifications, like 1% chance of a stiff sentence. Put in context, do you think any kid ever would think about the exact prison sentence before signing onto a stream and think \"yeah, 5 years is my cut-off; 10 is too many\"? They likely don't even know the sentencing details.  Even granting that everything else you said in this post is true, a *decade* in prison is at least an order of magnitude too high. That would be draconian by our current standards, which are already far too draconian.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":855.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"upvkbr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: Spectators of a livestream who join with intent to watch massacre should be prosecuted I have a view that I feel in the wake of the shooting that I think makes sense, but am willing to have my mind changed. I read somewhere that the shooter was scoping his targets for up to twenty minutes before finally shooting, with at least 20 spectators in the livestream. I don't know if this is true and the CMV does not deal with the facts of this particular massacre, rather it deals with the general case where an illegal act is livestreamed with actual spectators in the platform  I believe the following:   Assuming there were spectators to a livestream that recorded illegal acts like mass shootings or lynchings:  1. Law enforcement should be empowered to subpoena the website hosting the livestream to compel the website\/platform to provide data relating to the livestream (IP Addresses, date of the livestream and any other identifying information about the author of the livestream ***as well as the spectators***) 2. There should be a **severe** legal penalty if it can be proven, as a result of this subpoena, for people who watched a livestream with full knowledge of what was to transpire who did not a good faith attempt to inform law enforcement (where someone's digital footprint demonstrates that they knew of the plans of the attack, encouraged it and did not act upon that information). 3. I do not know if there is a law that deals specifically with spectators. If there is such a law, I believe that that law should be modified to further increase the penalties whatever those penalties currently are  For the purpose of this CMV, I am defining spectator as those who *(1) watch a livestream of an illegal act, such as a massacre or assault, (2) who had prior knowledge that such an act would be committed and (3) made no good faith attempt to contact law enforcement.*   I tried Googling about the legalities of watching \"illegal livestreams\" but all I got were articles about watching illegally obtained copyright materials. The only article I could find was this which deals specifically with California, citing failure to report a crime as a misdemeanor. This is ***INADEQUATE*** and **my CMV calls for something more punitive and expansive such as a federal statute with penalties requiring more than 10 years incarceration and penalties much higher than $1000.**  I am willing to have my view changed and considered the following counterpoints:   **Privacy**  However, I think if we were to transpose the digital situation into a real life situation, I think people who were physically present who went out of there way to watch an illegal commission of an act with knowledge beforehand that the act was going to transpire, I think law enforcement is empowered to prosecute those spectators. Similarly, if an IP Address or other digital foot print can be linked to a person who entered a livestream with the intent to an illegal act, they should be similarly prosecuted.  This would require that companies provide more information about the user: their login and chat history. But I feel that punishing those who watch massacres as entertainment would be a net benefit for society. And the subpoena power would be scoped to just that livestream and the information of the users who view that livestream.  **Is it reasonable to expect platforms to provide this information?**  I think it is. Platforms should provide whatever they have. My CMV does not compel platforms to acquire information about users: just that they provide whatever they have upon receiving a subpoena which is again scoped to that specific livestream and the relevant meta data of the users.  Even if it were the case that most of the spectators use technologies or methods to obfuscate their identity or digital footprint, I still think it would be a social good to compel platforms to provide whatever they have about the spectators of the livestream. Hopefully at least one or a few spectators can be punished. Shaming the few we can catch will be a net good for society and hopefully their pathology can be better understood.   **If you don't know what the penalties are, why increase them?**  I think increasing the penalties (if they don't exist for spectators of these livestreams) should be increased to send a message. People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.   I would be willing to change my mind on this specific point if 1. there is already a law addressing spectators AND the law is so punitive that a convincing case can be made that increasing the penalties will do little to deter the act itself or the desire to watch it unfold.   **How punitive is too punitive? Your calls for punishment is not proportional to the act which is merely spectating a crime**  I think in light of the social dynamics of these massacres, we need to rethink the seriousness of \"just spectating\" a livestream of a massacre (again, with full knowledge that a massacre is or is about to unfold). Misdemeanor levels of punishment is inadequate. We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms. Most will not report\u2014my CMV calls for empowering law enforcement and our statutes to forcibly compel platforms to provide metadata and punish spectators as well as the perpetrator. Increasing the punishment will provide a net beneficial value to society by letting users know that by even watching a massacre, law enforcement will have the legal tools to find and identify you.   **Would your view include those who did make a good faith attempt but for whatever reason cannot provide evidence that they made an attempt to contact law enforcement?**  This is one of the more difficult parts of my view. I think those people should not be prosecuted. But even if my view results in very few cases where people can be convicted, I think it is a good standard to set on principle\u2014if the various elements of a spectator with prior knowledge and further evidence that no good faith attempt was made, we need to increase those penalties, even if it is very hard to prove all of these facts.  Again, these are just my initial feelings upon hearing the news today about Buffalo. A small part of me feels that my view may be ill considered in the long term but I would like to understand why. Right now, I feel empowering the state to go after spectators is incredibly important.","c_root_id_A":"i8ncz84","c_root_id_B":"i8ne70l","created_at_utc_A":1652580495,"created_at_utc_B":1652581138,"score_A":8,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":">Assuming there were spectators to a livestream that recorded illegal acts like mass shootings or lynchings  Why just these acts? Why not simply any illegal activity that's streamed?   >There should be a severe legal penalty if it can be proven, as a result of this subpoena, for people who watched a livestream with full knowledge of what was to transpire who did not a good faith attempt to inform law enforcement (where someone's digital footprint demonstrates that they knew of the plans of the attack, encouraged it and did not act upon that information).  How could someone's digital footprint demonstrate that?  > This is INADEQUATE and my CMV calls for something more punitive and expansive such as a federal statute with penalties requiring more than 10 years incarceration and penalties much higher than $1000.  Why does this need to be punished by a decade of involuntary incarceration?   >However, I think if we were to transpose the digital situation into a real life situation, I think people who were physically present who went out of there way to watch an illegal commission of an act with knowledge beforehand that the act was going to transpire, I think law enforcement is empowered to prosecute those spectators.  Not really. Mandatory reporting law violations are seldom enforced, and hard to prove.   >But I feel that punishing those who watch massacres as entertainment would be a net benefit for society.  Why?  >And the subpoena power would be scoped to just that livestream and the information of the users who view that livestream.  What percentage of live streams do you think include illegal acts?  > I think it is. Platforms should provide whatever they have. My CMV does not compel platforms to acquire information about users: just that they provide whatever they have upon receiving a subpoena which is again scoped to that specific livestream and the relevant meta data of the users.  Wouldn't many platforms just stop acquiring that data?   >Even if it were the case that most of the spectators use technologies or methods to obfuscate their identity or digital footprint, I still think it would be a social good to compel platforms to provide whatever they have about the spectators of the livestream.  Why?  > Hopefully at least one or a few spectators can be punished. Shaming the few we can catch will be a net good for society and hopefully their pathology can be better understood.  Why?  >I think increasing the penalties (if they don't exist for spectators of these livestreams) should be increased to send a message.  What message exactly is the decade in prison sending?  >People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.  Why?  >People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.  Why do we need to rethink this?  >Misdemeanor levels of punishment is inadequate.  Why?   >We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports  Typically because those professionals have a strict code of conduct. That doesn't exist in the real world.   >similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms.  Why is that fair?  >Most will not report\u2014my CMV calls for empowering law enforcement and our statutes to forcibly compel platforms to provide metadata and punish spectators as well as the perpetrator.  So if we know that most won't report why are we punishing them?   >Increasing the punishment will provide a net beneficial value to society by letting users know that by even watching a massacre, law enforcement will have the legal tools to find and identify you.  How will that provide a net benefit to society?   > But even if my view results in very few cases where people can be convicted, I think it is a good standard to set on principle\u2014if the various elements of a spectator with prior knowledge and further evidence that no good faith attempt was made, we need to increase those penalties, even if it is very hard to prove all of these facts.  So you're cool with a few innocent people being involuntarily confined just to send a message?","human_ref_B":"To challenge a specific portion of this, \"more than 10 years incarceration\" is frankly insane and I think you're treating prison time waaaaay too flippantly here.  Mass incarceration is terrible and should be used absolutely as sparingly as possible.   It's extremely expensive. It costs way more to house a prisoner per year than the average American pays in taxes, and that's not even counting the indirect losses in terms of lost workers from the labor force.  Frivolous incarceration often increases crime. You take an edgy teen and throw them in prison for 10 years and give them a criminal record. You have both destroyed their employability and also ensured that their closest acquaintances are now all hardened felons, making them much more likely to turn to crime upon release.  And perhaps most importantly, harsh sentences do little if anything to deter crime. Criminals respond much more strongly to *likelihood* of being apprehended, which you can increase through more robust policing, but they are surprisingly unconcerned with the size of the penalty. Except it's actually not all that surprising on closer inspection because anyone who thought there was a realistic likelihood of being caught wouldn't commit the crime to begin with. Humans are terrible at precisely calculating the exact size of tail-end risks with severe ramifications, like 1% chance of a stiff sentence. Put in context, do you think any kid ever would think about the exact prison sentence before signing onto a stream and think \"yeah, 5 years is my cut-off; 10 is too many\"? They likely don't even know the sentencing details.  Even granting that everything else you said in this post is true, a *decade* in prison is at least an order of magnitude too high. That would be draconian by our current standards, which are already far too draconian.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":643.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"upvkbr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: Spectators of a livestream who join with intent to watch massacre should be prosecuted I have a view that I feel in the wake of the shooting that I think makes sense, but am willing to have my mind changed. I read somewhere that the shooter was scoping his targets for up to twenty minutes before finally shooting, with at least 20 spectators in the livestream. I don't know if this is true and the CMV does not deal with the facts of this particular massacre, rather it deals with the general case where an illegal act is livestreamed with actual spectators in the platform  I believe the following:   Assuming there were spectators to a livestream that recorded illegal acts like mass shootings or lynchings:  1. Law enforcement should be empowered to subpoena the website hosting the livestream to compel the website\/platform to provide data relating to the livestream (IP Addresses, date of the livestream and any other identifying information about the author of the livestream ***as well as the spectators***) 2. There should be a **severe** legal penalty if it can be proven, as a result of this subpoena, for people who watched a livestream with full knowledge of what was to transpire who did not a good faith attempt to inform law enforcement (where someone's digital footprint demonstrates that they knew of the plans of the attack, encouraged it and did not act upon that information). 3. I do not know if there is a law that deals specifically with spectators. If there is such a law, I believe that that law should be modified to further increase the penalties whatever those penalties currently are  For the purpose of this CMV, I am defining spectator as those who *(1) watch a livestream of an illegal act, such as a massacre or assault, (2) who had prior knowledge that such an act would be committed and (3) made no good faith attempt to contact law enforcement.*   I tried Googling about the legalities of watching \"illegal livestreams\" but all I got were articles about watching illegally obtained copyright materials. The only article I could find was this which deals specifically with California, citing failure to report a crime as a misdemeanor. This is ***INADEQUATE*** and **my CMV calls for something more punitive and expansive such as a federal statute with penalties requiring more than 10 years incarceration and penalties much higher than $1000.**  I am willing to have my view changed and considered the following counterpoints:   **Privacy**  However, I think if we were to transpose the digital situation into a real life situation, I think people who were physically present who went out of there way to watch an illegal commission of an act with knowledge beforehand that the act was going to transpire, I think law enforcement is empowered to prosecute those spectators. Similarly, if an IP Address or other digital foot print can be linked to a person who entered a livestream with the intent to an illegal act, they should be similarly prosecuted.  This would require that companies provide more information about the user: their login and chat history. But I feel that punishing those who watch massacres as entertainment would be a net benefit for society. And the subpoena power would be scoped to just that livestream and the information of the users who view that livestream.  **Is it reasonable to expect platforms to provide this information?**  I think it is. Platforms should provide whatever they have. My CMV does not compel platforms to acquire information about users: just that they provide whatever they have upon receiving a subpoena which is again scoped to that specific livestream and the relevant meta data of the users.  Even if it were the case that most of the spectators use technologies or methods to obfuscate their identity or digital footprint, I still think it would be a social good to compel platforms to provide whatever they have about the spectators of the livestream. Hopefully at least one or a few spectators can be punished. Shaming the few we can catch will be a net good for society and hopefully their pathology can be better understood.   **If you don't know what the penalties are, why increase them?**  I think increasing the penalties (if they don't exist for spectators of these livestreams) should be increased to send a message. People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.   I would be willing to change my mind on this specific point if 1. there is already a law addressing spectators AND the law is so punitive that a convincing case can be made that increasing the penalties will do little to deter the act itself or the desire to watch it unfold.   **How punitive is too punitive? Your calls for punishment is not proportional to the act which is merely spectating a crime**  I think in light of the social dynamics of these massacres, we need to rethink the seriousness of \"just spectating\" a livestream of a massacre (again, with full knowledge that a massacre is or is about to unfold). Misdemeanor levels of punishment is inadequate. We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms. Most will not report\u2014my CMV calls for empowering law enforcement and our statutes to forcibly compel platforms to provide metadata and punish spectators as well as the perpetrator. Increasing the punishment will provide a net beneficial value to society by letting users know that by even watching a massacre, law enforcement will have the legal tools to find and identify you.   **Would your view include those who did make a good faith attempt but for whatever reason cannot provide evidence that they made an attempt to contact law enforcement?**  This is one of the more difficult parts of my view. I think those people should not be prosecuted. But even if my view results in very few cases where people can be convicted, I think it is a good standard to set on principle\u2014if the various elements of a spectator with prior knowledge and further evidence that no good faith attempt was made, we need to increase those penalties, even if it is very hard to prove all of these facts.  Again, these are just my initial feelings upon hearing the news today about Buffalo. A small part of me feels that my view may be ill considered in the long term but I would like to understand why. Right now, I feel empowering the state to go after spectators is incredibly important.","c_root_id_A":"i8ncina","c_root_id_B":"i8ncxfi","created_at_utc_A":1652580254,"created_at_utc_B":1652580467,"score_A":11,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"Do you support good Samaritan laws in general?  > We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms.   Based on what standards for reporting? I've seen some dark shit on reddit never remotely considered reporting it, it all mostly seemed legal. To an honest extent.  I've never watched a massacre live, but that shouldn't impact my enjoyment of watching a person pick a fight and lose.","human_ref_B":"Very little of your view has anything to do specifically with streaming. It boils down to: did someone have foreknowledge of the commission of a crime and fail to report it. The problem becomes *how do you prove someone had foreknowledge of the crime*?  Even if there is data that shows an individual was streaming the violent act (or plans leading up to it etc.) you would need to prove an individual actually witnessed all of it.   For example, how would you differentiate between a person who watched the whole stream, heard threats of violence, thought these threats were real, and did nothing *vs.* someone logs on to a streamer, the stream is going, the viewer suddenly becomes very sick (for other reasons) and runs to the bathroom with violent diarrhea for an hour?  On paper and data records of internet activity these scenarios look exactly the same. The burden of proof would rightfully be very difficult. How do you put the individual in the chair watching and understanding everything that is happening and how do you prove it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":213.0,"score_ratio":3.9090909091}
+{"post_id":"upvkbr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: Spectators of a livestream who join with intent to watch massacre should be prosecuted I have a view that I feel in the wake of the shooting that I think makes sense, but am willing to have my mind changed. I read somewhere that the shooter was scoping his targets for up to twenty minutes before finally shooting, with at least 20 spectators in the livestream. I don't know if this is true and the CMV does not deal with the facts of this particular massacre, rather it deals with the general case where an illegal act is livestreamed with actual spectators in the platform  I believe the following:   Assuming there were spectators to a livestream that recorded illegal acts like mass shootings or lynchings:  1. Law enforcement should be empowered to subpoena the website hosting the livestream to compel the website\/platform to provide data relating to the livestream (IP Addresses, date of the livestream and any other identifying information about the author of the livestream ***as well as the spectators***) 2. There should be a **severe** legal penalty if it can be proven, as a result of this subpoena, for people who watched a livestream with full knowledge of what was to transpire who did not a good faith attempt to inform law enforcement (where someone's digital footprint demonstrates that they knew of the plans of the attack, encouraged it and did not act upon that information). 3. I do not know if there is a law that deals specifically with spectators. If there is such a law, I believe that that law should be modified to further increase the penalties whatever those penalties currently are  For the purpose of this CMV, I am defining spectator as those who *(1) watch a livestream of an illegal act, such as a massacre or assault, (2) who had prior knowledge that such an act would be committed and (3) made no good faith attempt to contact law enforcement.*   I tried Googling about the legalities of watching \"illegal livestreams\" but all I got were articles about watching illegally obtained copyright materials. The only article I could find was this which deals specifically with California, citing failure to report a crime as a misdemeanor. This is ***INADEQUATE*** and **my CMV calls for something more punitive and expansive such as a federal statute with penalties requiring more than 10 years incarceration and penalties much higher than $1000.**  I am willing to have my view changed and considered the following counterpoints:   **Privacy**  However, I think if we were to transpose the digital situation into a real life situation, I think people who were physically present who went out of there way to watch an illegal commission of an act with knowledge beforehand that the act was going to transpire, I think law enforcement is empowered to prosecute those spectators. Similarly, if an IP Address or other digital foot print can be linked to a person who entered a livestream with the intent to an illegal act, they should be similarly prosecuted.  This would require that companies provide more information about the user: their login and chat history. But I feel that punishing those who watch massacres as entertainment would be a net benefit for society. And the subpoena power would be scoped to just that livestream and the information of the users who view that livestream.  **Is it reasonable to expect platforms to provide this information?**  I think it is. Platforms should provide whatever they have. My CMV does not compel platforms to acquire information about users: just that they provide whatever they have upon receiving a subpoena which is again scoped to that specific livestream and the relevant meta data of the users.  Even if it were the case that most of the spectators use technologies or methods to obfuscate their identity or digital footprint, I still think it would be a social good to compel platforms to provide whatever they have about the spectators of the livestream. Hopefully at least one or a few spectators can be punished. Shaming the few we can catch will be a net good for society and hopefully their pathology can be better understood.   **If you don't know what the penalties are, why increase them?**  I think increasing the penalties (if they don't exist for spectators of these livestreams) should be increased to send a message. People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.   I would be willing to change my mind on this specific point if 1. there is already a law addressing spectators AND the law is so punitive that a convincing case can be made that increasing the penalties will do little to deter the act itself or the desire to watch it unfold.   **How punitive is too punitive? Your calls for punishment is not proportional to the act which is merely spectating a crime**  I think in light of the social dynamics of these massacres, we need to rethink the seriousness of \"just spectating\" a livestream of a massacre (again, with full knowledge that a massacre is or is about to unfold). Misdemeanor levels of punishment is inadequate. We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms. Most will not report\u2014my CMV calls for empowering law enforcement and our statutes to forcibly compel platforms to provide metadata and punish spectators as well as the perpetrator. Increasing the punishment will provide a net beneficial value to society by letting users know that by even watching a massacre, law enforcement will have the legal tools to find and identify you.   **Would your view include those who did make a good faith attempt but for whatever reason cannot provide evidence that they made an attempt to contact law enforcement?**  This is one of the more difficult parts of my view. I think those people should not be prosecuted. But even if my view results in very few cases where people can be convicted, I think it is a good standard to set on principle\u2014if the various elements of a spectator with prior knowledge and further evidence that no good faith attempt was made, we need to increase those penalties, even if it is very hard to prove all of these facts.  Again, these are just my initial feelings upon hearing the news today about Buffalo. A small part of me feels that my view may be ill considered in the long term but I would like to understand why. Right now, I feel empowering the state to go after spectators is incredibly important.","c_root_id_A":"i8nckml","c_root_id_B":"i8ncxfi","created_at_utc_A":1652580283,"created_at_utc_B":1652580467,"score_A":8,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"It sounds like what you're really after here is a failure-to-report law, which already exists for some crimes in some states. My state law makes reporting a homicide mandatory, for instance.   Given that your last segment explicitly builds in a caveat anyway as long as you attempt to report the homicide, it seems that most of the details in the title about joining with intent to watch and so forth are extraneous and the best version of this law could be summarized without those frills as \"you are obligated to report homicides that you are demonstrably aware of.\"","human_ref_B":"Very little of your view has anything to do specifically with streaming. It boils down to: did someone have foreknowledge of the commission of a crime and fail to report it. The problem becomes *how do you prove someone had foreknowledge of the crime*?  Even if there is data that shows an individual was streaming the violent act (or plans leading up to it etc.) you would need to prove an individual actually witnessed all of it.   For example, how would you differentiate between a person who watched the whole stream, heard threats of violence, thought these threats were real, and did nothing *vs.* someone logs on to a streamer, the stream is going, the viewer suddenly becomes very sick (for other reasons) and runs to the bathroom with violent diarrhea for an hour?  On paper and data records of internet activity these scenarios look exactly the same. The burden of proof would rightfully be very difficult. How do you put the individual in the chair watching and understanding everything that is happening and how do you prove it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":184.0,"score_ratio":5.375}
+{"post_id":"upvkbr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: Spectators of a livestream who join with intent to watch massacre should be prosecuted I have a view that I feel in the wake of the shooting that I think makes sense, but am willing to have my mind changed. I read somewhere that the shooter was scoping his targets for up to twenty minutes before finally shooting, with at least 20 spectators in the livestream. I don't know if this is true and the CMV does not deal with the facts of this particular massacre, rather it deals with the general case where an illegal act is livestreamed with actual spectators in the platform  I believe the following:   Assuming there were spectators to a livestream that recorded illegal acts like mass shootings or lynchings:  1. Law enforcement should be empowered to subpoena the website hosting the livestream to compel the website\/platform to provide data relating to the livestream (IP Addresses, date of the livestream and any other identifying information about the author of the livestream ***as well as the spectators***) 2. There should be a **severe** legal penalty if it can be proven, as a result of this subpoena, for people who watched a livestream with full knowledge of what was to transpire who did not a good faith attempt to inform law enforcement (where someone's digital footprint demonstrates that they knew of the plans of the attack, encouraged it and did not act upon that information). 3. I do not know if there is a law that deals specifically with spectators. If there is such a law, I believe that that law should be modified to further increase the penalties whatever those penalties currently are  For the purpose of this CMV, I am defining spectator as those who *(1) watch a livestream of an illegal act, such as a massacre or assault, (2) who had prior knowledge that such an act would be committed and (3) made no good faith attempt to contact law enforcement.*   I tried Googling about the legalities of watching \"illegal livestreams\" but all I got were articles about watching illegally obtained copyright materials. The only article I could find was this which deals specifically with California, citing failure to report a crime as a misdemeanor. This is ***INADEQUATE*** and **my CMV calls for something more punitive and expansive such as a federal statute with penalties requiring more than 10 years incarceration and penalties much higher than $1000.**  I am willing to have my view changed and considered the following counterpoints:   **Privacy**  However, I think if we were to transpose the digital situation into a real life situation, I think people who were physically present who went out of there way to watch an illegal commission of an act with knowledge beforehand that the act was going to transpire, I think law enforcement is empowered to prosecute those spectators. Similarly, if an IP Address or other digital foot print can be linked to a person who entered a livestream with the intent to an illegal act, they should be similarly prosecuted.  This would require that companies provide more information about the user: their login and chat history. But I feel that punishing those who watch massacres as entertainment would be a net benefit for society. And the subpoena power would be scoped to just that livestream and the information of the users who view that livestream.  **Is it reasonable to expect platforms to provide this information?**  I think it is. Platforms should provide whatever they have. My CMV does not compel platforms to acquire information about users: just that they provide whatever they have upon receiving a subpoena which is again scoped to that specific livestream and the relevant meta data of the users.  Even if it were the case that most of the spectators use technologies or methods to obfuscate their identity or digital footprint, I still think it would be a social good to compel platforms to provide whatever they have about the spectators of the livestream. Hopefully at least one or a few spectators can be punished. Shaming the few we can catch will be a net good for society and hopefully their pathology can be better understood.   **If you don't know what the penalties are, why increase them?**  I think increasing the penalties (if they don't exist for spectators of these livestreams) should be increased to send a message. People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.   I would be willing to change my mind on this specific point if 1. there is already a law addressing spectators AND the law is so punitive that a convincing case can be made that increasing the penalties will do little to deter the act itself or the desire to watch it unfold.   **How punitive is too punitive? Your calls for punishment is not proportional to the act which is merely spectating a crime**  I think in light of the social dynamics of these massacres, we need to rethink the seriousness of \"just spectating\" a livestream of a massacre (again, with full knowledge that a massacre is or is about to unfold). Misdemeanor levels of punishment is inadequate. We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms. Most will not report\u2014my CMV calls for empowering law enforcement and our statutes to forcibly compel platforms to provide metadata and punish spectators as well as the perpetrator. Increasing the punishment will provide a net beneficial value to society by letting users know that by even watching a massacre, law enforcement will have the legal tools to find and identify you.   **Would your view include those who did make a good faith attempt but for whatever reason cannot provide evidence that they made an attempt to contact law enforcement?**  This is one of the more difficult parts of my view. I think those people should not be prosecuted. But even if my view results in very few cases where people can be convicted, I think it is a good standard to set on principle\u2014if the various elements of a spectator with prior knowledge and further evidence that no good faith attempt was made, we need to increase those penalties, even if it is very hard to prove all of these facts.  Again, these are just my initial feelings upon hearing the news today about Buffalo. A small part of me feels that my view may be ill considered in the long term but I would like to understand why. Right now, I feel empowering the state to go after spectators is incredibly important.","c_root_id_A":"i8nwocq","c_root_id_B":"i8nnst8","created_at_utc_A":1652592122,"created_at_utc_B":1652586483,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This would make the thousands or millions of people that watched the second plane on 9\/11 on live news unfold who didn't immediately report it guilty of a crime, as they all tuned in the midst of a massacre, were it not for preventing *ex post facto* prosecution in our constitution.  Also, would you feel comfortable applying these penalties to inner-city minorities who witness gang violence but refuse to talk to police?","human_ref_B":"Yes, but the question is how to prove intent.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5639.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"upvkbr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: Spectators of a livestream who join with intent to watch massacre should be prosecuted I have a view that I feel in the wake of the shooting that I think makes sense, but am willing to have my mind changed. I read somewhere that the shooter was scoping his targets for up to twenty minutes before finally shooting, with at least 20 spectators in the livestream. I don't know if this is true and the CMV does not deal with the facts of this particular massacre, rather it deals with the general case where an illegal act is livestreamed with actual spectators in the platform  I believe the following:   Assuming there were spectators to a livestream that recorded illegal acts like mass shootings or lynchings:  1. Law enforcement should be empowered to subpoena the website hosting the livestream to compel the website\/platform to provide data relating to the livestream (IP Addresses, date of the livestream and any other identifying information about the author of the livestream ***as well as the spectators***) 2. There should be a **severe** legal penalty if it can be proven, as a result of this subpoena, for people who watched a livestream with full knowledge of what was to transpire who did not a good faith attempt to inform law enforcement (where someone's digital footprint demonstrates that they knew of the plans of the attack, encouraged it and did not act upon that information). 3. I do not know if there is a law that deals specifically with spectators. If there is such a law, I believe that that law should be modified to further increase the penalties whatever those penalties currently are  For the purpose of this CMV, I am defining spectator as those who *(1) watch a livestream of an illegal act, such as a massacre or assault, (2) who had prior knowledge that such an act would be committed and (3) made no good faith attempt to contact law enforcement.*   I tried Googling about the legalities of watching \"illegal livestreams\" but all I got were articles about watching illegally obtained copyright materials. The only article I could find was this which deals specifically with California, citing failure to report a crime as a misdemeanor. This is ***INADEQUATE*** and **my CMV calls for something more punitive and expansive such as a federal statute with penalties requiring more than 10 years incarceration and penalties much higher than $1000.**  I am willing to have my view changed and considered the following counterpoints:   **Privacy**  However, I think if we were to transpose the digital situation into a real life situation, I think people who were physically present who went out of there way to watch an illegal commission of an act with knowledge beforehand that the act was going to transpire, I think law enforcement is empowered to prosecute those spectators. Similarly, if an IP Address or other digital foot print can be linked to a person who entered a livestream with the intent to an illegal act, they should be similarly prosecuted.  This would require that companies provide more information about the user: their login and chat history. But I feel that punishing those who watch massacres as entertainment would be a net benefit for society. And the subpoena power would be scoped to just that livestream and the information of the users who view that livestream.  **Is it reasonable to expect platforms to provide this information?**  I think it is. Platforms should provide whatever they have. My CMV does not compel platforms to acquire information about users: just that they provide whatever they have upon receiving a subpoena which is again scoped to that specific livestream and the relevant meta data of the users.  Even if it were the case that most of the spectators use technologies or methods to obfuscate their identity or digital footprint, I still think it would be a social good to compel platforms to provide whatever they have about the spectators of the livestream. Hopefully at least one or a few spectators can be punished. Shaming the few we can catch will be a net good for society and hopefully their pathology can be better understood.   **If you don't know what the penalties are, why increase them?**  I think increasing the penalties (if they don't exist for spectators of these livestreams) should be increased to send a message. People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.   I would be willing to change my mind on this specific point if 1. there is already a law addressing spectators AND the law is so punitive that a convincing case can be made that increasing the penalties will do little to deter the act itself or the desire to watch it unfold.   **How punitive is too punitive? Your calls for punishment is not proportional to the act which is merely spectating a crime**  I think in light of the social dynamics of these massacres, we need to rethink the seriousness of \"just spectating\" a livestream of a massacre (again, with full knowledge that a massacre is or is about to unfold). Misdemeanor levels of punishment is inadequate. We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms. Most will not report\u2014my CMV calls for empowering law enforcement and our statutes to forcibly compel platforms to provide metadata and punish spectators as well as the perpetrator. Increasing the punishment will provide a net beneficial value to society by letting users know that by even watching a massacre, law enforcement will have the legal tools to find and identify you.   **Would your view include those who did make a good faith attempt but for whatever reason cannot provide evidence that they made an attempt to contact law enforcement?**  This is one of the more difficult parts of my view. I think those people should not be prosecuted. But even if my view results in very few cases where people can be convicted, I think it is a good standard to set on principle\u2014if the various elements of a spectator with prior knowledge and further evidence that no good faith attempt was made, we need to increase those penalties, even if it is very hard to prove all of these facts.  Again, these are just my initial feelings upon hearing the news today about Buffalo. A small part of me feels that my view may be ill considered in the long term but I would like to understand why. Right now, I feel empowering the state to go after spectators is incredibly important.","c_root_id_A":"i8nwocq","c_root_id_B":"i8njorc","created_at_utc_A":1652592122,"created_at_utc_B":1652584114,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This would make the thousands or millions of people that watched the second plane on 9\/11 on live news unfold who didn't immediately report it guilty of a crime, as they all tuned in the midst of a massacre, were it not for preventing *ex post facto* prosecution in our constitution.  Also, would you feel comfortable applying these penalties to inner-city minorities who witness gang violence but refuse to talk to police?","human_ref_B":"What massacre is it this time?  As to your CMV: you can't really prove that they actually watched it. I tend to keep some stream or video open playing in the background while I do other things, such as cook or clean, to have background noise, but mostly too low to understand anything. I know a few people who do this as well. Is not-watching-a-crime now also a crime? With someone physically present you can have witnessed that they did indeed watch the crime, but here you don't. You might not even have clicked on the stream - it might have been an automatic rollover from the stream you watched before.  Not to mention the impossibility of enforcing this in other countries.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8008.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"upvkbr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: Spectators of a livestream who join with intent to watch massacre should be prosecuted I have a view that I feel in the wake of the shooting that I think makes sense, but am willing to have my mind changed. I read somewhere that the shooter was scoping his targets for up to twenty minutes before finally shooting, with at least 20 spectators in the livestream. I don't know if this is true and the CMV does not deal with the facts of this particular massacre, rather it deals with the general case where an illegal act is livestreamed with actual spectators in the platform  I believe the following:   Assuming there were spectators to a livestream that recorded illegal acts like mass shootings or lynchings:  1. Law enforcement should be empowered to subpoena the website hosting the livestream to compel the website\/platform to provide data relating to the livestream (IP Addresses, date of the livestream and any other identifying information about the author of the livestream ***as well as the spectators***) 2. There should be a **severe** legal penalty if it can be proven, as a result of this subpoena, for people who watched a livestream with full knowledge of what was to transpire who did not a good faith attempt to inform law enforcement (where someone's digital footprint demonstrates that they knew of the plans of the attack, encouraged it and did not act upon that information). 3. I do not know if there is a law that deals specifically with spectators. If there is such a law, I believe that that law should be modified to further increase the penalties whatever those penalties currently are  For the purpose of this CMV, I am defining spectator as those who *(1) watch a livestream of an illegal act, such as a massacre or assault, (2) who had prior knowledge that such an act would be committed and (3) made no good faith attempt to contact law enforcement.*   I tried Googling about the legalities of watching \"illegal livestreams\" but all I got were articles about watching illegally obtained copyright materials. The only article I could find was this which deals specifically with California, citing failure to report a crime as a misdemeanor. This is ***INADEQUATE*** and **my CMV calls for something more punitive and expansive such as a federal statute with penalties requiring more than 10 years incarceration and penalties much higher than $1000.**  I am willing to have my view changed and considered the following counterpoints:   **Privacy**  However, I think if we were to transpose the digital situation into a real life situation, I think people who were physically present who went out of there way to watch an illegal commission of an act with knowledge beforehand that the act was going to transpire, I think law enforcement is empowered to prosecute those spectators. Similarly, if an IP Address or other digital foot print can be linked to a person who entered a livestream with the intent to an illegal act, they should be similarly prosecuted.  This would require that companies provide more information about the user: their login and chat history. But I feel that punishing those who watch massacres as entertainment would be a net benefit for society. And the subpoena power would be scoped to just that livestream and the information of the users who view that livestream.  **Is it reasonable to expect platforms to provide this information?**  I think it is. Platforms should provide whatever they have. My CMV does not compel platforms to acquire information about users: just that they provide whatever they have upon receiving a subpoena which is again scoped to that specific livestream and the relevant meta data of the users.  Even if it were the case that most of the spectators use technologies or methods to obfuscate their identity or digital footprint, I still think it would be a social good to compel platforms to provide whatever they have about the spectators of the livestream. Hopefully at least one or a few spectators can be punished. Shaming the few we can catch will be a net good for society and hopefully their pathology can be better understood.   **If you don't know what the penalties are, why increase them?**  I think increasing the penalties (if they don't exist for spectators of these livestreams) should be increased to send a message. People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.   I would be willing to change my mind on this specific point if 1. there is already a law addressing spectators AND the law is so punitive that a convincing case can be made that increasing the penalties will do little to deter the act itself or the desire to watch it unfold.   **How punitive is too punitive? Your calls for punishment is not proportional to the act which is merely spectating a crime**  I think in light of the social dynamics of these massacres, we need to rethink the seriousness of \"just spectating\" a livestream of a massacre (again, with full knowledge that a massacre is or is about to unfold). Misdemeanor levels of punishment is inadequate. We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms. Most will not report\u2014my CMV calls for empowering law enforcement and our statutes to forcibly compel platforms to provide metadata and punish spectators as well as the perpetrator. Increasing the punishment will provide a net beneficial value to society by letting users know that by even watching a massacre, law enforcement will have the legal tools to find and identify you.   **Would your view include those who did make a good faith attempt but for whatever reason cannot provide evidence that they made an attempt to contact law enforcement?**  This is one of the more difficult parts of my view. I think those people should not be prosecuted. But even if my view results in very few cases where people can be convicted, I think it is a good standard to set on principle\u2014if the various elements of a spectator with prior knowledge and further evidence that no good faith attempt was made, we need to increase those penalties, even if it is very hard to prove all of these facts.  Again, these are just my initial feelings upon hearing the news today about Buffalo. A small part of me feels that my view may be ill considered in the long term but I would like to understand why. Right now, I feel empowering the state to go after spectators is incredibly important.","c_root_id_A":"i8njorc","c_root_id_B":"i8o90sk","created_at_utc_A":1652584114,"created_at_utc_B":1652601948,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What massacre is it this time?  As to your CMV: you can't really prove that they actually watched it. I tend to keep some stream or video open playing in the background while I do other things, such as cook or clean, to have background noise, but mostly too low to understand anything. I know a few people who do this as well. Is not-watching-a-crime now also a crime? With someone physically present you can have witnessed that they did indeed watch the crime, but here you don't. You might not even have clicked on the stream - it might have been an automatic rollover from the stream you watched before.  Not to mention the impossibility of enforcing this in other countries.","human_ref_B":">For the purpose of this CMV, I am defining spectator as those who (1) watch a livestream of an illegal act, such as a massacre or assault,  I think my main objection as far as just #1, it seems likely that spectators could be at least partly concerned citizens. And because livestreams can be viewed nationally and internationally, people from basically anywhere can watch.  And not everyone, or even most people, may not be so resourceful or possess the sense to figure out the local police department for where the livestream is being shot, or reach the FBI, or reach their own police department, that's a qualm that goes to #3.  So assuming that intent for spectating could exempt people from conviction, intent would be difficult to prove. Not impossible, but rare.  >(2) who had prior knowledge that such an act would be committed  Prior knowledge seems ambiguous, and would depend on how explicit the indication was. If I were to see a threat of violence generally online, I think it's possible or likely to assume (or at least hope) that it's a twisted joke.  Secondly, how \"prior\" does it need to be? If I see a livestream and it's titled in reference to a shooting or a massacre, is that considered enough notice and information to not open the stream? The stream would contain the clarifying content, and then the spectator could become a concerned and paralyzed or useless spectator per above.  >(3) made no good faith attempt to contact law enforcement  I think this valuable, but still, do we punish people who are too stupid, too old, too na\u00efve,  to figure out who to contact for a stream located far away and possibly at an unidentified location? Maybe it could become common knowledge, but penalizing people for anything up to sheer ignorance seems perhaps overly punitive.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17834.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"upvkbr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: Spectators of a livestream who join with intent to watch massacre should be prosecuted I have a view that I feel in the wake of the shooting that I think makes sense, but am willing to have my mind changed. I read somewhere that the shooter was scoping his targets for up to twenty minutes before finally shooting, with at least 20 spectators in the livestream. I don't know if this is true and the CMV does not deal with the facts of this particular massacre, rather it deals with the general case where an illegal act is livestreamed with actual spectators in the platform  I believe the following:   Assuming there were spectators to a livestream that recorded illegal acts like mass shootings or lynchings:  1. Law enforcement should be empowered to subpoena the website hosting the livestream to compel the website\/platform to provide data relating to the livestream (IP Addresses, date of the livestream and any other identifying information about the author of the livestream ***as well as the spectators***) 2. There should be a **severe** legal penalty if it can be proven, as a result of this subpoena, for people who watched a livestream with full knowledge of what was to transpire who did not a good faith attempt to inform law enforcement (where someone's digital footprint demonstrates that they knew of the plans of the attack, encouraged it and did not act upon that information). 3. I do not know if there is a law that deals specifically with spectators. If there is such a law, I believe that that law should be modified to further increase the penalties whatever those penalties currently are  For the purpose of this CMV, I am defining spectator as those who *(1) watch a livestream of an illegal act, such as a massacre or assault, (2) who had prior knowledge that such an act would be committed and (3) made no good faith attempt to contact law enforcement.*   I tried Googling about the legalities of watching \"illegal livestreams\" but all I got were articles about watching illegally obtained copyright materials. The only article I could find was this which deals specifically with California, citing failure to report a crime as a misdemeanor. This is ***INADEQUATE*** and **my CMV calls for something more punitive and expansive such as a federal statute with penalties requiring more than 10 years incarceration and penalties much higher than $1000.**  I am willing to have my view changed and considered the following counterpoints:   **Privacy**  However, I think if we were to transpose the digital situation into a real life situation, I think people who were physically present who went out of there way to watch an illegal commission of an act with knowledge beforehand that the act was going to transpire, I think law enforcement is empowered to prosecute those spectators. Similarly, if an IP Address or other digital foot print can be linked to a person who entered a livestream with the intent to an illegal act, they should be similarly prosecuted.  This would require that companies provide more information about the user: their login and chat history. But I feel that punishing those who watch massacres as entertainment would be a net benefit for society. And the subpoena power would be scoped to just that livestream and the information of the users who view that livestream.  **Is it reasonable to expect platforms to provide this information?**  I think it is. Platforms should provide whatever they have. My CMV does not compel platforms to acquire information about users: just that they provide whatever they have upon receiving a subpoena which is again scoped to that specific livestream and the relevant meta data of the users.  Even if it were the case that most of the spectators use technologies or methods to obfuscate their identity or digital footprint, I still think it would be a social good to compel platforms to provide whatever they have about the spectators of the livestream. Hopefully at least one or a few spectators can be punished. Shaming the few we can catch will be a net good for society and hopefully their pathology can be better understood.   **If you don't know what the penalties are, why increase them?**  I think increasing the penalties (if they don't exist for spectators of these livestreams) should be increased to send a message. People who view these livestreams need to be made an example of to break the sick dynamic where murderers perform their illegal acts for posterity or for status\u2014any community that has a member who makes a credible threat of violence should understand that if the act were to transpire, law enforcement, the media and the American people will descend upon them and find perpetrators and abettors to crimes.   I would be willing to change my mind on this specific point if 1. there is already a law addressing spectators AND the law is so punitive that a convincing case can be made that increasing the penalties will do little to deter the act itself or the desire to watch it unfold.   **How punitive is too punitive? Your calls for punishment is not proportional to the act which is merely spectating a crime**  I think in light of the social dynamics of these massacres, we need to rethink the seriousness of \"just spectating\" a livestream of a massacre (again, with full knowledge that a massacre is or is about to unfold). Misdemeanor levels of punishment is inadequate. We have specific laws for educators and professionals who are mandated reports\u2014similarly, in a digital, distributed world, it is fair to empower all citizens to be mandated reporters of heinous crimes within their communities and platforms. Most will not report\u2014my CMV calls for empowering law enforcement and our statutes to forcibly compel platforms to provide metadata and punish spectators as well as the perpetrator. Increasing the punishment will provide a net beneficial value to society by letting users know that by even watching a massacre, law enforcement will have the legal tools to find and identify you.   **Would your view include those who did make a good faith attempt but for whatever reason cannot provide evidence that they made an attempt to contact law enforcement?**  This is one of the more difficult parts of my view. I think those people should not be prosecuted. But even if my view results in very few cases where people can be convicted, I think it is a good standard to set on principle\u2014if the various elements of a spectator with prior knowledge and further evidence that no good faith attempt was made, we need to increase those penalties, even if it is very hard to prove all of these facts.  Again, these are just my initial feelings upon hearing the news today about Buffalo. A small part of me feels that my view may be ill considered in the long term but I would like to understand why. Right now, I feel empowering the state to go after spectators is incredibly important.","c_root_id_A":"i8njorc","c_root_id_B":"i8nnst8","created_at_utc_A":1652584114,"created_at_utc_B":1652586483,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What massacre is it this time?  As to your CMV: you can't really prove that they actually watched it. I tend to keep some stream or video open playing in the background while I do other things, such as cook or clean, to have background noise, but mostly too low to understand anything. I know a few people who do this as well. Is not-watching-a-crime now also a crime? With someone physically present you can have witnessed that they did indeed watch the crime, but here you don't. You might not even have clicked on the stream - it might have been an automatic rollover from the stream you watched before.  Not to mention the impossibility of enforcing this in other countries.","human_ref_B":"Yes, but the question is how to prove intent.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2369.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"b1zg1l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Using the phrase \"common sense\" is a dangerous precedent in political debates I'm a firm believer that when you make a claim, you should provide evidence to back it up. Saying stuff like, \"it's just common sense!\" sounds to me like an attempt to evade that responsibility, and possibly even attack somebody's intelligence (not a good debate tactic). If something is truly as obvious to be considered \"common sense,\" then finding evidence and defending your case should be easy.   Using terms like \"common sense laws\" sounds like a marketing tactic to me that appeals to emotion and knee-jerk reactions rather than critical thinking.   I'm okay with calling something common sense if you also provide evidence to support it. It's people using it instead of making an argument, i.e. \"I don't need to explain it because it's common sense\" that seems like a sloppy mindset","c_root_id_A":"eipdtwd","c_root_id_B":"eipdkqn","created_at_utc_A":1552788961,"created_at_utc_B":1552788731,"score_A":14,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So what, exactly, do you mean by a \"dangerous precedent\"?  Are you claiming that this is something new that is creating some problem now?  You know, perhaps, that one of the most influential documents in American History is Common Sense by Thomas Paine.   Appeals to Common Sense have been a cornerstone of American politics since before there was an America. If it were actually a dangerous \"precedent\", surely we would have seen some severe consequence of that danger long before now.","human_ref_B":"I don't know if this really attacks your view or not since I generally agree but I'll try.   Sometimes explaining why something is common sense can be seen as you giving some validation to something that deserves no validation. Especially if you think your opponent is arguing in bad faith. By making an argument you're achnowledging that your opponents argument is valid enough for a response, and that there's likely people who are in the audience who need to be convinced.   If I say \"I propose all traffic lights should be green all the time so everyone can get to work faster\"   Would you be justified to just appeal to common sense and dismiss my point?  Maybe not in that case since its really easy to say \"common sense dictates that's a bad idea, everyone would crash\"   But perhaps you could think of examples where it's not just a simple answer but it's also a common sense issue.   Also it seems like there's not a super fine line between appealing to common sense and making an actual argument. Even in the example I gave you didn't give a reason people would crash so is that really much better? You can't just go through every aspect of your argument all at once.   Even if you do stop at just saying common sense all it takes is them asking why it's common sense or why it should be.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":230.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"b1zg1l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Using the phrase \"common sense\" is a dangerous precedent in political debates I'm a firm believer that when you make a claim, you should provide evidence to back it up. Saying stuff like, \"it's just common sense!\" sounds to me like an attempt to evade that responsibility, and possibly even attack somebody's intelligence (not a good debate tactic). If something is truly as obvious to be considered \"common sense,\" then finding evidence and defending your case should be easy.   Using terms like \"common sense laws\" sounds like a marketing tactic to me that appeals to emotion and knee-jerk reactions rather than critical thinking.   I'm okay with calling something common sense if you also provide evidence to support it. It's people using it instead of making an argument, i.e. \"I don't need to explain it because it's common sense\" that seems like a sloppy mindset","c_root_id_A":"eipdkqn","c_root_id_B":"eipme6x","created_at_utc_A":1552788731,"created_at_utc_B":1552797317,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I don't know if this really attacks your view or not since I generally agree but I'll try.   Sometimes explaining why something is common sense can be seen as you giving some validation to something that deserves no validation. Especially if you think your opponent is arguing in bad faith. By making an argument you're achnowledging that your opponents argument is valid enough for a response, and that there's likely people who are in the audience who need to be convinced.   If I say \"I propose all traffic lights should be green all the time so everyone can get to work faster\"   Would you be justified to just appeal to common sense and dismiss my point?  Maybe not in that case since its really easy to say \"common sense dictates that's a bad idea, everyone would crash\"   But perhaps you could think of examples where it's not just a simple answer but it's also a common sense issue.   Also it seems like there's not a super fine line between appealing to common sense and making an actual argument. Even in the example I gave you didn't give a reason people would crash so is that really much better? You can't just go through every aspect of your argument all at once.   Even if you do stop at just saying common sense all it takes is them asking why it's common sense or why it should be.","human_ref_B":"Like common sense gun control. Banning something because it \u2018looks scary\u2019 is a borderline insane thing to do. Plenty of firearms can do far more damage than your standard AR-15, but send they don\u2019t have the dark plastic, they\u2019re okay.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8586.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"b1zg1l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Using the phrase \"common sense\" is a dangerous precedent in political debates I'm a firm believer that when you make a claim, you should provide evidence to back it up. Saying stuff like, \"it's just common sense!\" sounds to me like an attempt to evade that responsibility, and possibly even attack somebody's intelligence (not a good debate tactic). If something is truly as obvious to be considered \"common sense,\" then finding evidence and defending your case should be easy.   Using terms like \"common sense laws\" sounds like a marketing tactic to me that appeals to emotion and knee-jerk reactions rather than critical thinking.   I'm okay with calling something common sense if you also provide evidence to support it. It's people using it instead of making an argument, i.e. \"I don't need to explain it because it's common sense\" that seems like a sloppy mindset","c_root_id_A":"eipp39d","c_root_id_B":"eiqbq4r","created_at_utc_A":1552800277,"created_at_utc_B":1552831515,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It's a technique called 'hand-waving' where you're basically gesturing to a body of knowledge. That can be done honestly or dishonestly. You can be gesturing to a whole bunch of ideas that everyone knows and accepts and it would be a waste of time to rehash or you could be trying to skip over a hole in what you're saying in the hope that no-one will notice.  It just depends how someone is using it. This is the difference between good and bad faith arguing.","human_ref_B":"It's not dangerous at all, in fact it's a good thing in my view.  Common sense is a term we use for things we know but we don't know how we know.  No two people will completely agree with what's common sense, and there's a very good reason for that.  Common sense is bullshit, it doesn't exist.    When a politician uses phrases like common sense I assume he's bullshitting.  He is attacking any other position as not common sense.  He's doing this in a way that completely absolves him of the requirement to actually provide evidence for his point.  He may not be lying, but if he isn't he's displaying intellectual laziness.  I want to know if a politician is intellectually lazy.  When one speaks of common sense it perks my skeptical ears, and makes me want to take a look at his position to see if he's got anything besides bullshit behind it.  It's a red flag, it draws my attention to something that bears scrutiny.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31238.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"b1zg1l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Using the phrase \"common sense\" is a dangerous precedent in political debates I'm a firm believer that when you make a claim, you should provide evidence to back it up. Saying stuff like, \"it's just common sense!\" sounds to me like an attempt to evade that responsibility, and possibly even attack somebody's intelligence (not a good debate tactic). If something is truly as obvious to be considered \"common sense,\" then finding evidence and defending your case should be easy.   Using terms like \"common sense laws\" sounds like a marketing tactic to me that appeals to emotion and knee-jerk reactions rather than critical thinking.   I'm okay with calling something common sense if you also provide evidence to support it. It's people using it instead of making an argument, i.e. \"I don't need to explain it because it's common sense\" that seems like a sloppy mindset","c_root_id_A":"eiqbq4r","c_root_id_B":"eipdkqn","created_at_utc_A":1552831515,"created_at_utc_B":1552788731,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It's not dangerous at all, in fact it's a good thing in my view.  Common sense is a term we use for things we know but we don't know how we know.  No two people will completely agree with what's common sense, and there's a very good reason for that.  Common sense is bullshit, it doesn't exist.    When a politician uses phrases like common sense I assume he's bullshitting.  He is attacking any other position as not common sense.  He's doing this in a way that completely absolves him of the requirement to actually provide evidence for his point.  He may not be lying, but if he isn't he's displaying intellectual laziness.  I want to know if a politician is intellectually lazy.  When one speaks of common sense it perks my skeptical ears, and makes me want to take a look at his position to see if he's got anything besides bullshit behind it.  It's a red flag, it draws my attention to something that bears scrutiny.","human_ref_B":"I don't know if this really attacks your view or not since I generally agree but I'll try.   Sometimes explaining why something is common sense can be seen as you giving some validation to something that deserves no validation. Especially if you think your opponent is arguing in bad faith. By making an argument you're achnowledging that your opponents argument is valid enough for a response, and that there's likely people who are in the audience who need to be convinced.   If I say \"I propose all traffic lights should be green all the time so everyone can get to work faster\"   Would you be justified to just appeal to common sense and dismiss my point?  Maybe not in that case since its really easy to say \"common sense dictates that's a bad idea, everyone would crash\"   But perhaps you could think of examples where it's not just a simple answer but it's also a common sense issue.   Also it seems like there's not a super fine line between appealing to common sense and making an actual argument. Even in the example I gave you didn't give a reason people would crash so is that really much better? You can't just go through every aspect of your argument all at once.   Even if you do stop at just saying common sense all it takes is them asking why it's common sense or why it should be.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":42784.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"b1zg1l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Using the phrase \"common sense\" is a dangerous precedent in political debates I'm a firm believer that when you make a claim, you should provide evidence to back it up. Saying stuff like, \"it's just common sense!\" sounds to me like an attempt to evade that responsibility, and possibly even attack somebody's intelligence (not a good debate tactic). If something is truly as obvious to be considered \"common sense,\" then finding evidence and defending your case should be easy.   Using terms like \"common sense laws\" sounds like a marketing tactic to me that appeals to emotion and knee-jerk reactions rather than critical thinking.   I'm okay with calling something common sense if you also provide evidence to support it. It's people using it instead of making an argument, i.e. \"I don't need to explain it because it's common sense\" that seems like a sloppy mindset","c_root_id_A":"eiq1pr9","c_root_id_B":"eiqbq4r","created_at_utc_A":1552819913,"created_at_utc_B":1552831515,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Steven Crowder once said that you really shouldn't cite common sense as an argument, because if it were common, you wouldn't need to explain it.  I think that the argument of common sense is a weak one and your view really doesn't need to be changed, as it is a sane one.","human_ref_B":"It's not dangerous at all, in fact it's a good thing in my view.  Common sense is a term we use for things we know but we don't know how we know.  No two people will completely agree with what's common sense, and there's a very good reason for that.  Common sense is bullshit, it doesn't exist.    When a politician uses phrases like common sense I assume he's bullshitting.  He is attacking any other position as not common sense.  He's doing this in a way that completely absolves him of the requirement to actually provide evidence for his point.  He may not be lying, but if he isn't he's displaying intellectual laziness.  I want to know if a politician is intellectually lazy.  When one speaks of common sense it perks my skeptical ears, and makes me want to take a look at his position to see if he's got anything besides bullshit behind it.  It's a red flag, it draws my attention to something that bears scrutiny.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11602.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"b1zg1l","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Using the phrase \"common sense\" is a dangerous precedent in political debates I'm a firm believer that when you make a claim, you should provide evidence to back it up. Saying stuff like, \"it's just common sense!\" sounds to me like an attempt to evade that responsibility, and possibly even attack somebody's intelligence (not a good debate tactic). If something is truly as obvious to be considered \"common sense,\" then finding evidence and defending your case should be easy.   Using terms like \"common sense laws\" sounds like a marketing tactic to me that appeals to emotion and knee-jerk reactions rather than critical thinking.   I'm okay with calling something common sense if you also provide evidence to support it. It's people using it instead of making an argument, i.e. \"I don't need to explain it because it's common sense\" that seems like a sloppy mindset","c_root_id_A":"eipp39d","c_root_id_B":"eipdkqn","created_at_utc_A":1552800277,"created_at_utc_B":1552788731,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It's a technique called 'hand-waving' where you're basically gesturing to a body of knowledge. That can be done honestly or dishonestly. You can be gesturing to a whole bunch of ideas that everyone knows and accepts and it would be a waste of time to rehash or you could be trying to skip over a hole in what you're saying in the hope that no-one will notice.  It just depends how someone is using it. This is the difference between good and bad faith arguing.","human_ref_B":"I don't know if this really attacks your view or not since I generally agree but I'll try.   Sometimes explaining why something is common sense can be seen as you giving some validation to something that deserves no validation. Especially if you think your opponent is arguing in bad faith. By making an argument you're achnowledging that your opponents argument is valid enough for a response, and that there's likely people who are in the audience who need to be convinced.   If I say \"I propose all traffic lights should be green all the time so everyone can get to work faster\"   Would you be justified to just appeal to common sense and dismiss my point?  Maybe not in that case since its really easy to say \"common sense dictates that's a bad idea, everyone would crash\"   But perhaps you could think of examples where it's not just a simple answer but it's also a common sense issue.   Also it seems like there's not a super fine line between appealing to common sense and making an actual argument. Even in the example I gave you didn't give a reason people would crash so is that really much better? You can't just go through every aspect of your argument all at once.   Even if you do stop at just saying common sense all it takes is them asking why it's common sense or why it should be.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11546.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dksq4m3","c_root_id_B":"dkswdsf","created_at_utc_A":1501169705,"created_at_utc_B":1501176020,"score_A":307,"score_B":947,"human_ref_A":"I understand why you're angry. Listening to Donald Trump makes me angry too. But I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what republicans want to accomplish. For the sake of brevity I'll address only one of your claims specifically;  namely that republicans don't care about inequality or poverty.   Republicans do in fact care about poverty. Red states give more to charity than blue states and even Donald Trump has promised that some programs like Social Security Benefits won't be touched under his administration. The difference isn't that republicans don't care it's that republicans have different ideas about the best way to help the poor. Economic theory suggests that there is a trade off between income equality and economic growth. We can raise taxes more but the economy will grow more slowly. Republicans look at the historical data and conclude that economic growth is really important. The poor today have a very high standard of living compared to past generations thanks to an average growth rate of 2% a year in the US. The research suggests that decreasing corporate tax rates by 10% could increase growth by 1% to 2%. Republicans read that and think in the long run our country will be so much better off that it's worth having more inequality now to make the whole country better off in the future.   Reasonable people disagree about how convincing the evidence is and how important growth is relative to inequality. Democrats think that inequality is more important and that the estimates of the trade off are too big. It's fine if you think that, but both republicans and democrats care about the poor and want them to be better off.","human_ref_B":"I'm a college graduate Atheist Asian-American millennial who voted for Obama twice, so I am by no means a supporter of the Republican party. However, I do feel that the disdain for Republicans is perpetuated by oversimplified narratives of \"good\" vs \"evil\" and that is completely unhealthy for people mentally, emotionally, and productively.   > Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate  The US government was designed around a system of checks and balances. The Legislative branch has two Houses for this very reason. The Senate having a fixed 2-person per state representation was meant to empower smaller states to have an equal say as the more populous larger states. In contrast, the House favors larger states except at the very tail end where populations are so sparse that they have to round up to 1 representative. Six states, which equates to 6 delegates out of 435.   > Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are.  Avoid hyperbolic language. Exaggerations do not make for meaningful discussion or analysis. Espousing narrative from an echo chamber does not make for a good example. If you feel like a policy is dangerous, specify and elaborate. There is also a distinct difference between \"hurting\" and \"not-helping.\" Imagine that there is no government involvement at all. Does the Republican proposed policy make the person worse off than he would have normally? Or does it simply not help them the way they want? You might say there's no difference between not helping and hurting, but then you will open the Pandora's Box of morality and start down a very slippery slope. Every dollar that you spend on a luxury like coffee, Coca Cola, Snickers, or Netflix suddenly becomes a dollar you could have donated to someone else in much greater need of food or shelter.  > Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'.  This is where I think the narrative that's being perpetuated goes too far. Are there self-serving politicians that are completely indifferent to the well-being of their fellow man? Yep. And guess what, they exist on both sides of the aisle, regardless of whether they have a (R) or a (D) in front of their name. But the average person working in Washington probably *does* care about the well-being of people and the country, it's just that they disagree on the best solution.   For example, yes, many of the most ardent Trump supporters are also simultaneously the recipients of the greatest amount of aid they don't want. But you should also try and look at it from their perspective. They don't *want* handouts, they would rather have a job and buy their own health insurance.   > Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  I would caution against using \"amoral\" as a litmus for people, because that is entirely subjective and you are literally measuring them using morality, which varies from person to person. Legal and ethical are the proper metrics here, not moral.   > Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong.  In all honestly, I will say this: Republican legislators often have a more realistic outlook as opposed to Democrats who are at times blinded by idealism. For example, dumping more money into education won't produce any results when we already lead in spending per student. We already spend plenty, it's just that costs are ramping up to match spending (look at college tuition or $78 doorknobs and $300 office chairs.)  College is also not a panacea that will solve all our problems. Degree inflation is absolutely real, look at European countries and you will get an idea of how needlessly inflated educational attainment can become without increase in value from the education itself. Instead of herding people into college classrooms and having taxpayers foot the bill, education should be fixed at the K-12 level.  It's easy to pitch free college as the answer to student loans. It's hard to admit that people have to make choices in their life and be responsible for the choices they make. It's also equally hard to figure out a fair and equitable way to pay for the education through tax dollars.   > Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems.   Again, drummed up narrative. People could view the unsustainable levels of spending as dangerous and be concerned for the consequences of adding to the national debt, censoring of their freedom of speech, and growing scope of the federal government and the Executive branch through Executive Orders. \" Simply put, Democrats could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems as long as they say it's to help people. \"  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others.   > This is where I think \/u\/Metallic52 hits the nail on the head. Just because they do not show compassion the same way you do does not mean they are devoid of it.   As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression,  Both parties engage in gerrymandering, the Republicans are simply better at it. This doesn't justify the practice, but it is allowed and will continue to be done unless reform is enacted. As for voter suppression, there is a distinction that needs to be made here about disparate impact versus disparate intent. For example a fair and neutral law could end up disparately impacting a group more than others, but that is because of the circumstances of the impacted group and not on the law itself. For example, Voter ID's themselves are a perfectly fine reasonable requirement. However, it is polarized because it would result in disparate impact. Because you can not create a neutral impact law, often times it's best to just go for neutral intent and deal with the impact.   > Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior even if it's at their own expense.  This is the part where I feel like the liberals drove themselves off the cliff. Instead of slowing down and acknowledging the progress made and using realistic language, many just doubled-down, slammed on the gas, and dialed it up to 11 on many issues. For example, expanding the definition of what constitutes as sexual-assault, cherry-picking statistics and not controlling for variables for wages, and blanket protection of any police victims instead of judging them on a case-by-case basis.   The hardest part for many ardent liberals to come to terms with is that feelings =\/= facts. Just because you feel discriminated against, doesn't mean you were. Are there crazy religious ladies in Kansas that are abusing their positions as a civil servant? You betcha. But not every case is like that, and you'll have your crazies both to the left and right. There's a SJW and Feminazi like Anita Sarkeesian that is rabid with dogma for every Kim Davis. Most people are more towards the center.  > So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  This is not to attack you or make a slight against your character, but I think you need to be more tolerant and empathetic towards people you don't agree with. Oftentimes Conservatives just look and live life differently than you or I do, and you have to be alright with that. They can view it as a personal choice whether or not to bake a cake for someone. They can disagree with you on what is best for the economy and helping lift people out of poverty. They can and probably will think that border security is more important than healthcare as a federal issue, but might be inclined to flip that around at the State level.   I've repeated it multiple times, but I want to reiterate it to emphasize on how important it is: Don't get caught up in the narratives. It's extremely easy to demonize, nay, dehumanize people as racists, bigots, homophobes, and devalue their opinions as human beings. It's even easier in this day and age for the worst of the worst to be propelled to top of the internet and used as strawmen examples by each side. But it's imperative that everyone steps back once in a while and realize that we aren't as malicious and hateful as the echo chamber and distorted headlines make each other out to be.   We're all just human. And as humans, we're different. It's not just about tolerating each other racially, ethnically, sexually, but also ideologically.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6315.0,"score_ratio":3.0846905537}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dksr6n3","c_root_id_B":"dkswdsf","created_at_utc_A":1501170808,"created_at_utc_B":1501176020,"score_A":74,"score_B":947,"human_ref_A":"Are you sure it's not Democrats who cannot be reasoned with and don't see truth as objective?  I mean I think your entire post can best be summed up as the kind of post from someone who is unwilling to even listen to people with different ideas then their own and instead demonizes them in the worst ways possible.","human_ref_B":"I'm a college graduate Atheist Asian-American millennial who voted for Obama twice, so I am by no means a supporter of the Republican party. However, I do feel that the disdain for Republicans is perpetuated by oversimplified narratives of \"good\" vs \"evil\" and that is completely unhealthy for people mentally, emotionally, and productively.   > Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate  The US government was designed around a system of checks and balances. The Legislative branch has two Houses for this very reason. The Senate having a fixed 2-person per state representation was meant to empower smaller states to have an equal say as the more populous larger states. In contrast, the House favors larger states except at the very tail end where populations are so sparse that they have to round up to 1 representative. Six states, which equates to 6 delegates out of 435.   > Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are.  Avoid hyperbolic language. Exaggerations do not make for meaningful discussion or analysis. Espousing narrative from an echo chamber does not make for a good example. If you feel like a policy is dangerous, specify and elaborate. There is also a distinct difference between \"hurting\" and \"not-helping.\" Imagine that there is no government involvement at all. Does the Republican proposed policy make the person worse off than he would have normally? Or does it simply not help them the way they want? You might say there's no difference between not helping and hurting, but then you will open the Pandora's Box of morality and start down a very slippery slope. Every dollar that you spend on a luxury like coffee, Coca Cola, Snickers, or Netflix suddenly becomes a dollar you could have donated to someone else in much greater need of food or shelter.  > Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'.  This is where I think the narrative that's being perpetuated goes too far. Are there self-serving politicians that are completely indifferent to the well-being of their fellow man? Yep. And guess what, they exist on both sides of the aisle, regardless of whether they have a (R) or a (D) in front of their name. But the average person working in Washington probably *does* care about the well-being of people and the country, it's just that they disagree on the best solution.   For example, yes, many of the most ardent Trump supporters are also simultaneously the recipients of the greatest amount of aid they don't want. But you should also try and look at it from their perspective. They don't *want* handouts, they would rather have a job and buy their own health insurance.   > Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  I would caution against using \"amoral\" as a litmus for people, because that is entirely subjective and you are literally measuring them using morality, which varies from person to person. Legal and ethical are the proper metrics here, not moral.   > Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong.  In all honestly, I will say this: Republican legislators often have a more realistic outlook as opposed to Democrats who are at times blinded by idealism. For example, dumping more money into education won't produce any results when we already lead in spending per student. We already spend plenty, it's just that costs are ramping up to match spending (look at college tuition or $78 doorknobs and $300 office chairs.)  College is also not a panacea that will solve all our problems. Degree inflation is absolutely real, look at European countries and you will get an idea of how needlessly inflated educational attainment can become without increase in value from the education itself. Instead of herding people into college classrooms and having taxpayers foot the bill, education should be fixed at the K-12 level.  It's easy to pitch free college as the answer to student loans. It's hard to admit that people have to make choices in their life and be responsible for the choices they make. It's also equally hard to figure out a fair and equitable way to pay for the education through tax dollars.   > Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems.   Again, drummed up narrative. People could view the unsustainable levels of spending as dangerous and be concerned for the consequences of adding to the national debt, censoring of their freedom of speech, and growing scope of the federal government and the Executive branch through Executive Orders. \" Simply put, Democrats could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems as long as they say it's to help people. \"  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others.   > This is where I think \/u\/Metallic52 hits the nail on the head. Just because they do not show compassion the same way you do does not mean they are devoid of it.   As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression,  Both parties engage in gerrymandering, the Republicans are simply better at it. This doesn't justify the practice, but it is allowed and will continue to be done unless reform is enacted. As for voter suppression, there is a distinction that needs to be made here about disparate impact versus disparate intent. For example a fair and neutral law could end up disparately impacting a group more than others, but that is because of the circumstances of the impacted group and not on the law itself. For example, Voter ID's themselves are a perfectly fine reasonable requirement. However, it is polarized because it would result in disparate impact. Because you can not create a neutral impact law, often times it's best to just go for neutral intent and deal with the impact.   > Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior even if it's at their own expense.  This is the part where I feel like the liberals drove themselves off the cliff. Instead of slowing down and acknowledging the progress made and using realistic language, many just doubled-down, slammed on the gas, and dialed it up to 11 on many issues. For example, expanding the definition of what constitutes as sexual-assault, cherry-picking statistics and not controlling for variables for wages, and blanket protection of any police victims instead of judging them on a case-by-case basis.   The hardest part for many ardent liberals to come to terms with is that feelings =\/= facts. Just because you feel discriminated against, doesn't mean you were. Are there crazy religious ladies in Kansas that are abusing their positions as a civil servant? You betcha. But not every case is like that, and you'll have your crazies both to the left and right. There's a SJW and Feminazi like Anita Sarkeesian that is rabid with dogma for every Kim Davis. Most people are more towards the center.  > So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  This is not to attack you or make a slight against your character, but I think you need to be more tolerant and empathetic towards people you don't agree with. Oftentimes Conservatives just look and live life differently than you or I do, and you have to be alright with that. They can view it as a personal choice whether or not to bake a cake for someone. They can disagree with you on what is best for the economy and helping lift people out of poverty. They can and probably will think that border security is more important than healthcare as a federal issue, but might be inclined to flip that around at the State level.   I've repeated it multiple times, but I want to reiterate it to emphasize on how important it is: Don't get caught up in the narratives. It's extremely easy to demonize, nay, dehumanize people as racists, bigots, homophobes, and devalue their opinions as human beings. It's even easier in this day and age for the worst of the worst to be propelled to top of the internet and used as strawmen examples by each side. But it's imperative that everyone steps back once in a while and realize that we aren't as malicious and hateful as the echo chamber and distorted headlines make each other out to be.   We're all just human. And as humans, we're different. It's not just about tolerating each other racially, ethnically, sexually, but also ideologically.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5212.0,"score_ratio":12.7972972973}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkssxth","c_root_id_B":"dkswdsf","created_at_utc_A":1501172593,"created_at_utc_B":1501176020,"score_A":25,"score_B":947,"human_ref_A":"1.) I am a fellow liberal and I know exactly where you're coming from with a lot of these points. HOWEVER, I do think it is very important to differentiate Trump supporters from all Republicans. And not everyone \"supports\" Trump for the same reasons. Some don't support him at all, but are uncomfortable with how far left the Democratic candidates were, so felt pressured to vote for him. I have a cousin from NJ who is an Israeli citizen, and quietly hates pretty much everything Trump is doing, but feels like he needs to support him because most other candidates made Israelis really scared for their security (that's a whole other convo and not interested in having that debate here). Many republicans actually dislike Trump quite a bit. I'm noticing a lot of outrage specifically among my military vet Republican friends, and anyone even remotely moderate. My point is that it isn't quite fair to lump everyone into these categories. They are applicable to some people, of course. But NOT applicable to all Republicans by any means. People had a wide variety of reasons for voting for him (or not voting for him but supporting the acting president)  2.) It is important to also make the distinction between the Republicans in office and the Republicans who are our peers here on the ground. Our peers have most of the same wants and needs and fears that we have. Despite what the media might want you to think, everyone wants jobs, everyone wants health care, most people aren't hideous racists, most people don't really care what gay people do, and most people know that Muslims aren't all terrorists. The bad stuff is happening in the GOVERNMENT, because the types of people putting themselves up for election are absolutely awful. I have a Republican friend in the south who said that he's just horrified because he never has any good choices to vote for in his state and local elections. It's just bad, shitty and terrible. He is extremely frustrated. The Republicans in the government are beholden to a lot of interests other than ours. And the Democrats too, frankly. Corporate money in our politics is a major, major issue and at the end of the day, constituents aren't the ones who really matter.  3.) And to address your thesis of justification for anger - I would say that it is justified to be angry at the SITUATION, and yes frustrated with certain, people, but I do not think it is justified, and in fact I think it's dangerous, to hate Republicans. We can't lump them all into a category, we can't stereotype them, and we can't alienate them. We have to understand why they are thinking and voting the way they are, and find common ground with them. To be perfectly honest, I've had more reasonable conversations with Republicans than many liberals. Liberals are very, very shouty. We need to be less shouty and more listeny.","human_ref_B":"I'm a college graduate Atheist Asian-American millennial who voted for Obama twice, so I am by no means a supporter of the Republican party. However, I do feel that the disdain for Republicans is perpetuated by oversimplified narratives of \"good\" vs \"evil\" and that is completely unhealthy for people mentally, emotionally, and productively.   > Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate  The US government was designed around a system of checks and balances. The Legislative branch has two Houses for this very reason. The Senate having a fixed 2-person per state representation was meant to empower smaller states to have an equal say as the more populous larger states. In contrast, the House favors larger states except at the very tail end where populations are so sparse that they have to round up to 1 representative. Six states, which equates to 6 delegates out of 435.   > Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are.  Avoid hyperbolic language. Exaggerations do not make for meaningful discussion or analysis. Espousing narrative from an echo chamber does not make for a good example. If you feel like a policy is dangerous, specify and elaborate. There is also a distinct difference between \"hurting\" and \"not-helping.\" Imagine that there is no government involvement at all. Does the Republican proposed policy make the person worse off than he would have normally? Or does it simply not help them the way they want? You might say there's no difference between not helping and hurting, but then you will open the Pandora's Box of morality and start down a very slippery slope. Every dollar that you spend on a luxury like coffee, Coca Cola, Snickers, or Netflix suddenly becomes a dollar you could have donated to someone else in much greater need of food or shelter.  > Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'.  This is where I think the narrative that's being perpetuated goes too far. Are there self-serving politicians that are completely indifferent to the well-being of their fellow man? Yep. And guess what, they exist on both sides of the aisle, regardless of whether they have a (R) or a (D) in front of their name. But the average person working in Washington probably *does* care about the well-being of people and the country, it's just that they disagree on the best solution.   For example, yes, many of the most ardent Trump supporters are also simultaneously the recipients of the greatest amount of aid they don't want. But you should also try and look at it from their perspective. They don't *want* handouts, they would rather have a job and buy their own health insurance.   > Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  I would caution against using \"amoral\" as a litmus for people, because that is entirely subjective and you are literally measuring them using morality, which varies from person to person. Legal and ethical are the proper metrics here, not moral.   > Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong.  In all honestly, I will say this: Republican legislators often have a more realistic outlook as opposed to Democrats who are at times blinded by idealism. For example, dumping more money into education won't produce any results when we already lead in spending per student. We already spend plenty, it's just that costs are ramping up to match spending (look at college tuition or $78 doorknobs and $300 office chairs.)  College is also not a panacea that will solve all our problems. Degree inflation is absolutely real, look at European countries and you will get an idea of how needlessly inflated educational attainment can become without increase in value from the education itself. Instead of herding people into college classrooms and having taxpayers foot the bill, education should be fixed at the K-12 level.  It's easy to pitch free college as the answer to student loans. It's hard to admit that people have to make choices in their life and be responsible for the choices they make. It's also equally hard to figure out a fair and equitable way to pay for the education through tax dollars.   > Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems.   Again, drummed up narrative. People could view the unsustainable levels of spending as dangerous and be concerned for the consequences of adding to the national debt, censoring of their freedom of speech, and growing scope of the federal government and the Executive branch through Executive Orders. \" Simply put, Democrats could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems as long as they say it's to help people. \"  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others.   > This is where I think \/u\/Metallic52 hits the nail on the head. Just because they do not show compassion the same way you do does not mean they are devoid of it.   As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression,  Both parties engage in gerrymandering, the Republicans are simply better at it. This doesn't justify the practice, but it is allowed and will continue to be done unless reform is enacted. As for voter suppression, there is a distinction that needs to be made here about disparate impact versus disparate intent. For example a fair and neutral law could end up disparately impacting a group more than others, but that is because of the circumstances of the impacted group and not on the law itself. For example, Voter ID's themselves are a perfectly fine reasonable requirement. However, it is polarized because it would result in disparate impact. Because you can not create a neutral impact law, often times it's best to just go for neutral intent and deal with the impact.   > Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior even if it's at their own expense.  This is the part where I feel like the liberals drove themselves off the cliff. Instead of slowing down and acknowledging the progress made and using realistic language, many just doubled-down, slammed on the gas, and dialed it up to 11 on many issues. For example, expanding the definition of what constitutes as sexual-assault, cherry-picking statistics and not controlling for variables for wages, and blanket protection of any police victims instead of judging them on a case-by-case basis.   The hardest part for many ardent liberals to come to terms with is that feelings =\/= facts. Just because you feel discriminated against, doesn't mean you were. Are there crazy religious ladies in Kansas that are abusing their positions as a civil servant? You betcha. But not every case is like that, and you'll have your crazies both to the left and right. There's a SJW and Feminazi like Anita Sarkeesian that is rabid with dogma for every Kim Davis. Most people are more towards the center.  > So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  This is not to attack you or make a slight against your character, but I think you need to be more tolerant and empathetic towards people you don't agree with. Oftentimes Conservatives just look and live life differently than you or I do, and you have to be alright with that. They can view it as a personal choice whether or not to bake a cake for someone. They can disagree with you on what is best for the economy and helping lift people out of poverty. They can and probably will think that border security is more important than healthcare as a federal issue, but might be inclined to flip that around at the State level.   I've repeated it multiple times, but I want to reiterate it to emphasize on how important it is: Don't get caught up in the narratives. It's extremely easy to demonize, nay, dehumanize people as racists, bigots, homophobes, and devalue their opinions as human beings. It's even easier in this day and age for the worst of the worst to be propelled to top of the internet and used as strawmen examples by each side. But it's imperative that everyone steps back once in a while and realize that we aren't as malicious and hateful as the echo chamber and distorted headlines make each other out to be.   We're all just human. And as humans, we're different. It's not just about tolerating each other racially, ethnically, sexually, but also ideologically.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3427.0,"score_ratio":37.88}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkspxeu","c_root_id_B":"dkswdsf","created_at_utc_A":1501169493,"created_at_utc_B":1501176020,"score_A":17,"score_B":947,"human_ref_A":"I think the problem is more about how the bases have become increasingly polarized, and the Republican's constant filibusters of things like universal background checks during the Obama Administration, not to their recent use of the Nuclear Option to neuter the power of the filibuster, paints them as huge hypocrites.  As far as anger towards Trump and the republicans are concerned, I'm less angry that they're in power and more angry at the policies they are espousing. Trump signed a bill that lets internet based companies, ISPs especially, sell our information to advertisers without our consent, this bill only had a 6% approval rating.","human_ref_B":"I'm a college graduate Atheist Asian-American millennial who voted for Obama twice, so I am by no means a supporter of the Republican party. However, I do feel that the disdain for Republicans is perpetuated by oversimplified narratives of \"good\" vs \"evil\" and that is completely unhealthy for people mentally, emotionally, and productively.   > Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate  The US government was designed around a system of checks and balances. The Legislative branch has two Houses for this very reason. The Senate having a fixed 2-person per state representation was meant to empower smaller states to have an equal say as the more populous larger states. In contrast, the House favors larger states except at the very tail end where populations are so sparse that they have to round up to 1 representative. Six states, which equates to 6 delegates out of 435.   > Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are.  Avoid hyperbolic language. Exaggerations do not make for meaningful discussion or analysis. Espousing narrative from an echo chamber does not make for a good example. If you feel like a policy is dangerous, specify and elaborate. There is also a distinct difference between \"hurting\" and \"not-helping.\" Imagine that there is no government involvement at all. Does the Republican proposed policy make the person worse off than he would have normally? Or does it simply not help them the way they want? You might say there's no difference between not helping and hurting, but then you will open the Pandora's Box of morality and start down a very slippery slope. Every dollar that you spend on a luxury like coffee, Coca Cola, Snickers, or Netflix suddenly becomes a dollar you could have donated to someone else in much greater need of food or shelter.  > Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'.  This is where I think the narrative that's being perpetuated goes too far. Are there self-serving politicians that are completely indifferent to the well-being of their fellow man? Yep. And guess what, they exist on both sides of the aisle, regardless of whether they have a (R) or a (D) in front of their name. But the average person working in Washington probably *does* care about the well-being of people and the country, it's just that they disagree on the best solution.   For example, yes, many of the most ardent Trump supporters are also simultaneously the recipients of the greatest amount of aid they don't want. But you should also try and look at it from their perspective. They don't *want* handouts, they would rather have a job and buy their own health insurance.   > Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  I would caution against using \"amoral\" as a litmus for people, because that is entirely subjective and you are literally measuring them using morality, which varies from person to person. Legal and ethical are the proper metrics here, not moral.   > Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong.  In all honestly, I will say this: Republican legislators often have a more realistic outlook as opposed to Democrats who are at times blinded by idealism. For example, dumping more money into education won't produce any results when we already lead in spending per student. We already spend plenty, it's just that costs are ramping up to match spending (look at college tuition or $78 doorknobs and $300 office chairs.)  College is also not a panacea that will solve all our problems. Degree inflation is absolutely real, look at European countries and you will get an idea of how needlessly inflated educational attainment can become without increase in value from the education itself. Instead of herding people into college classrooms and having taxpayers foot the bill, education should be fixed at the K-12 level.  It's easy to pitch free college as the answer to student loans. It's hard to admit that people have to make choices in their life and be responsible for the choices they make. It's also equally hard to figure out a fair and equitable way to pay for the education through tax dollars.   > Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems.   Again, drummed up narrative. People could view the unsustainable levels of spending as dangerous and be concerned for the consequences of adding to the national debt, censoring of their freedom of speech, and growing scope of the federal government and the Executive branch through Executive Orders. \" Simply put, Democrats could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems as long as they say it's to help people. \"  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others.   > This is where I think \/u\/Metallic52 hits the nail on the head. Just because they do not show compassion the same way you do does not mean they are devoid of it.   As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression,  Both parties engage in gerrymandering, the Republicans are simply better at it. This doesn't justify the practice, but it is allowed and will continue to be done unless reform is enacted. As for voter suppression, there is a distinction that needs to be made here about disparate impact versus disparate intent. For example a fair and neutral law could end up disparately impacting a group more than others, but that is because of the circumstances of the impacted group and not on the law itself. For example, Voter ID's themselves are a perfectly fine reasonable requirement. However, it is polarized because it would result in disparate impact. Because you can not create a neutral impact law, often times it's best to just go for neutral intent and deal with the impact.   > Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior even if it's at their own expense.  This is the part where I feel like the liberals drove themselves off the cliff. Instead of slowing down and acknowledging the progress made and using realistic language, many just doubled-down, slammed on the gas, and dialed it up to 11 on many issues. For example, expanding the definition of what constitutes as sexual-assault, cherry-picking statistics and not controlling for variables for wages, and blanket protection of any police victims instead of judging them on a case-by-case basis.   The hardest part for many ardent liberals to come to terms with is that feelings =\/= facts. Just because you feel discriminated against, doesn't mean you were. Are there crazy religious ladies in Kansas that are abusing their positions as a civil servant? You betcha. But not every case is like that, and you'll have your crazies both to the left and right. There's a SJW and Feminazi like Anita Sarkeesian that is rabid with dogma for every Kim Davis. Most people are more towards the center.  > So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  This is not to attack you or make a slight against your character, but I think you need to be more tolerant and empathetic towards people you don't agree with. Oftentimes Conservatives just look and live life differently than you or I do, and you have to be alright with that. They can view it as a personal choice whether or not to bake a cake for someone. They can disagree with you on what is best for the economy and helping lift people out of poverty. They can and probably will think that border security is more important than healthcare as a federal issue, but might be inclined to flip that around at the State level.   I've repeated it multiple times, but I want to reiterate it to emphasize on how important it is: Don't get caught up in the narratives. It's extremely easy to demonize, nay, dehumanize people as racists, bigots, homophobes, and devalue their opinions as human beings. It's even easier in this day and age for the worst of the worst to be propelled to top of the internet and used as strawmen examples by each side. But it's imperative that everyone steps back once in a while and realize that we aren't as malicious and hateful as the echo chamber and distorted headlines make each other out to be.   We're all just human. And as humans, we're different. It's not just about tolerating each other racially, ethnically, sexually, but also ideologically.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6527.0,"score_ratio":55.7058823529}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkspxeu","c_root_id_B":"dksq4m3","created_at_utc_A":1501169493,"created_at_utc_B":1501169705,"score_A":17,"score_B":307,"human_ref_A":"I think the problem is more about how the bases have become increasingly polarized, and the Republican's constant filibusters of things like universal background checks during the Obama Administration, not to their recent use of the Nuclear Option to neuter the power of the filibuster, paints them as huge hypocrites.  As far as anger towards Trump and the republicans are concerned, I'm less angry that they're in power and more angry at the policies they are espousing. Trump signed a bill that lets internet based companies, ISPs especially, sell our information to advertisers without our consent, this bill only had a 6% approval rating.","human_ref_B":"I understand why you're angry. Listening to Donald Trump makes me angry too. But I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what republicans want to accomplish. For the sake of brevity I'll address only one of your claims specifically;  namely that republicans don't care about inequality or poverty.   Republicans do in fact care about poverty. Red states give more to charity than blue states and even Donald Trump has promised that some programs like Social Security Benefits won't be touched under his administration. The difference isn't that republicans don't care it's that republicans have different ideas about the best way to help the poor. Economic theory suggests that there is a trade off between income equality and economic growth. We can raise taxes more but the economy will grow more slowly. Republicans look at the historical data and conclude that economic growth is really important. The poor today have a very high standard of living compared to past generations thanks to an average growth rate of 2% a year in the US. The research suggests that decreasing corporate tax rates by 10% could increase growth by 1% to 2%. Republicans read that and think in the long run our country will be so much better off that it's worth having more inequality now to make the whole country better off in the future.   Reasonable people disagree about how convincing the evidence is and how important growth is relative to inequality. Democrats think that inequality is more important and that the estimates of the trade off are too big. It's fine if you think that, but both republicans and democrats care about the poor and want them to be better off.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":212.0,"score_ratio":18.0588235294}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dksx3aw","c_root_id_B":"dksr6n3","created_at_utc_A":1501176715,"created_at_utc_B":1501170808,"score_A":91,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"> Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse.   What makes you think they are indifferent poverty, healthcare and inequality? Because they don't agree with you about what's the best way to handle those problems?  You're just ascribing intent.   What about republicans who look Detroit and Baltimore which both have been ran by democrats since the 60s, have implemented democrat policies and are miserable failures. I mean, Detroit was one of the richest cities in America in 50s and early 60.   Are republicans who point out that Detroit has become a hell hole due to the democrats running the city into the ground indifferent to poverty?   > Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?   Or... they are on principle against public healthcare? Again, you're ascribing intet. If someone is fundamentally for the free market, it's not because they hate democrats they don't want public healthcare... they want a free market.   Literally your whole argument is to ascribe intent to fit your narrative.  It's somewhat like me saying \"democrats are for guncontrol because they want rapists to be able to rape without fear of a gun.\"   That would be very dishonest of me, to ascribe intent like that, wouldn't it?","human_ref_B":"Are you sure it's not Democrats who cannot be reasoned with and don't see truth as objective?  I mean I think your entire post can best be summed up as the kind of post from someone who is unwilling to even listen to people with different ideas then their own and instead demonizes them in the worst ways possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5907.0,"score_ratio":1.2297297297}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dksx3aw","c_root_id_B":"dkssxth","created_at_utc_A":1501176715,"created_at_utc_B":1501172593,"score_A":91,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"> Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse.   What makes you think they are indifferent poverty, healthcare and inequality? Because they don't agree with you about what's the best way to handle those problems?  You're just ascribing intent.   What about republicans who look Detroit and Baltimore which both have been ran by democrats since the 60s, have implemented democrat policies and are miserable failures. I mean, Detroit was one of the richest cities in America in 50s and early 60.   Are republicans who point out that Detroit has become a hell hole due to the democrats running the city into the ground indifferent to poverty?   > Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?   Or... they are on principle against public healthcare? Again, you're ascribing intet. If someone is fundamentally for the free market, it's not because they hate democrats they don't want public healthcare... they want a free market.   Literally your whole argument is to ascribe intent to fit your narrative.  It's somewhat like me saying \"democrats are for guncontrol because they want rapists to be able to rape without fear of a gun.\"   That would be very dishonest of me, to ascribe intent like that, wouldn't it?","human_ref_B":"1.) I am a fellow liberal and I know exactly where you're coming from with a lot of these points. HOWEVER, I do think it is very important to differentiate Trump supporters from all Republicans. And not everyone \"supports\" Trump for the same reasons. Some don't support him at all, but are uncomfortable with how far left the Democratic candidates were, so felt pressured to vote for him. I have a cousin from NJ who is an Israeli citizen, and quietly hates pretty much everything Trump is doing, but feels like he needs to support him because most other candidates made Israelis really scared for their security (that's a whole other convo and not interested in having that debate here). Many republicans actually dislike Trump quite a bit. I'm noticing a lot of outrage specifically among my military vet Republican friends, and anyone even remotely moderate. My point is that it isn't quite fair to lump everyone into these categories. They are applicable to some people, of course. But NOT applicable to all Republicans by any means. People had a wide variety of reasons for voting for him (or not voting for him but supporting the acting president)  2.) It is important to also make the distinction between the Republicans in office and the Republicans who are our peers here on the ground. Our peers have most of the same wants and needs and fears that we have. Despite what the media might want you to think, everyone wants jobs, everyone wants health care, most people aren't hideous racists, most people don't really care what gay people do, and most people know that Muslims aren't all terrorists. The bad stuff is happening in the GOVERNMENT, because the types of people putting themselves up for election are absolutely awful. I have a Republican friend in the south who said that he's just horrified because he never has any good choices to vote for in his state and local elections. It's just bad, shitty and terrible. He is extremely frustrated. The Republicans in the government are beholden to a lot of interests other than ours. And the Democrats too, frankly. Corporate money in our politics is a major, major issue and at the end of the day, constituents aren't the ones who really matter.  3.) And to address your thesis of justification for anger - I would say that it is justified to be angry at the SITUATION, and yes frustrated with certain, people, but I do not think it is justified, and in fact I think it's dangerous, to hate Republicans. We can't lump them all into a category, we can't stereotype them, and we can't alienate them. We have to understand why they are thinking and voting the way they are, and find common ground with them. To be perfectly honest, I've had more reasonable conversations with Republicans than many liberals. Liberals are very, very shouty. We need to be less shouty and more listeny.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4122.0,"score_ratio":3.64}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dksx3aw","c_root_id_B":"dkspxeu","created_at_utc_A":1501176715,"created_at_utc_B":1501169493,"score_A":91,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"> Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse.   What makes you think they are indifferent poverty, healthcare and inequality? Because they don't agree with you about what's the best way to handle those problems?  You're just ascribing intent.   What about republicans who look Detroit and Baltimore which both have been ran by democrats since the 60s, have implemented democrat policies and are miserable failures. I mean, Detroit was one of the richest cities in America in 50s and early 60.   Are republicans who point out that Detroit has become a hell hole due to the democrats running the city into the ground indifferent to poverty?   > Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?   Or... they are on principle against public healthcare? Again, you're ascribing intet. If someone is fundamentally for the free market, it's not because they hate democrats they don't want public healthcare... they want a free market.   Literally your whole argument is to ascribe intent to fit your narrative.  It's somewhat like me saying \"democrats are for guncontrol because they want rapists to be able to rape without fear of a gun.\"   That would be very dishonest of me, to ascribe intent like that, wouldn't it?","human_ref_B":"I think the problem is more about how the bases have become increasingly polarized, and the Republican's constant filibusters of things like universal background checks during the Obama Administration, not to their recent use of the Nuclear Option to neuter the power of the filibuster, paints them as huge hypocrites.  As far as anger towards Trump and the republicans are concerned, I'm less angry that they're in power and more angry at the policies they are espousing. Trump signed a bill that lets internet based companies, ISPs especially, sell our information to advertisers without our consent, this bill only had a 6% approval rating.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7222.0,"score_ratio":5.3529411765}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkspxeu","c_root_id_B":"dksr6n3","created_at_utc_A":1501169493,"created_at_utc_B":1501170808,"score_A":17,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"I think the problem is more about how the bases have become increasingly polarized, and the Republican's constant filibusters of things like universal background checks during the Obama Administration, not to their recent use of the Nuclear Option to neuter the power of the filibuster, paints them as huge hypocrites.  As far as anger towards Trump and the republicans are concerned, I'm less angry that they're in power and more angry at the policies they are espousing. Trump signed a bill that lets internet based companies, ISPs especially, sell our information to advertisers without our consent, this bill only had a 6% approval rating.","human_ref_B":"Are you sure it's not Democrats who cannot be reasoned with and don't see truth as objective?  I mean I think your entire post can best be summed up as the kind of post from someone who is unwilling to even listen to people with different ideas then their own and instead demonizes them in the worst ways possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1315.0,"score_ratio":4.3529411765}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkt0s7w","c_root_id_B":"dkssxth","created_at_utc_A":1501180336,"created_at_utc_B":1501172593,"score_A":36,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"While not a republican, I think I can answer somewhat.   Yes of course you have reason to be angry. Everybody does. But should you? I think that is just unhelpful. Instead I recommend: start talking to republicans.  To your points:  **1. That republicans have more power** Republicans have higher political influence currently. But that is because people are electing republicans. Which is first and foremost Democrats not putting up electable alternatives, and stupid to blame on republicans.  Most people live in cities. So in absolute numbers democrats could easily have had more political power if they had come up with electable candidates and platform.  (That said, whether or not the electoral college is ideal may or may not be the case. But that is not republicans fault.)  **2. That republican policies are \"dangerous\"** This is just partisanship. Trust me \"angry\" republicans think just the same about the other side. The solution is to talk to each-other to hear the perspectives on the other side and negotiate a middle-ground. Plus you might convince someone. (Which is the opposite of staying in your camp and saying the other side is dangerous). Not saying republicans are great at this of course, but this is the big challenge of our time in America. And something by the way we are much better at in my country Norway, so I know this can be done.   **3. That republicans can't be reasoned with.** Again, this is pure partisanship on your end. When you see republicans say the same about democrats, what do you think? That they are \"just wrong\" and you are \"just right\"? How about you are both just wrong about this thing and need to start talking to each other? If you really listened you will probably find genuine perspectives worth integrating. And you both will become smarter by conversing about it so you really understand the qualms of the other side.   **4. That they lack respect and compassion for others.** So sorry to keep repeating myself. But don't you notice that partisans on the other side say the exact same thing? Plus they may have some other unique complaints about democrats. Perhaps that you refuse to deal with reality, or weigh equity above all other values. Or that you don't seem to understand that policies have trade-offs.    Bottom line is. What you are complaining about is of course true. But what the partisans on the other side is complaining about you is also true! The reason a society work is that people then come together and talk about it. Listen and learn the concerns of the other side. Update some opinions perhaps, and then negotiate a middle ground.   Conservatives and liberals do kind of have different roles in society. Conservatives keep the wheel running and take care of the good from the past. Liberals look for new stuff and try to make better ideals. We dont want either without the other. We need both the right and the left, and then we need to talk to each-other.","human_ref_B":"1.) I am a fellow liberal and I know exactly where you're coming from with a lot of these points. HOWEVER, I do think it is very important to differentiate Trump supporters from all Republicans. And not everyone \"supports\" Trump for the same reasons. Some don't support him at all, but are uncomfortable with how far left the Democratic candidates were, so felt pressured to vote for him. I have a cousin from NJ who is an Israeli citizen, and quietly hates pretty much everything Trump is doing, but feels like he needs to support him because most other candidates made Israelis really scared for their security (that's a whole other convo and not interested in having that debate here). Many republicans actually dislike Trump quite a bit. I'm noticing a lot of outrage specifically among my military vet Republican friends, and anyone even remotely moderate. My point is that it isn't quite fair to lump everyone into these categories. They are applicable to some people, of course. But NOT applicable to all Republicans by any means. People had a wide variety of reasons for voting for him (or not voting for him but supporting the acting president)  2.) It is important to also make the distinction between the Republicans in office and the Republicans who are our peers here on the ground. Our peers have most of the same wants and needs and fears that we have. Despite what the media might want you to think, everyone wants jobs, everyone wants health care, most people aren't hideous racists, most people don't really care what gay people do, and most people know that Muslims aren't all terrorists. The bad stuff is happening in the GOVERNMENT, because the types of people putting themselves up for election are absolutely awful. I have a Republican friend in the south who said that he's just horrified because he never has any good choices to vote for in his state and local elections. It's just bad, shitty and terrible. He is extremely frustrated. The Republicans in the government are beholden to a lot of interests other than ours. And the Democrats too, frankly. Corporate money in our politics is a major, major issue and at the end of the day, constituents aren't the ones who really matter.  3.) And to address your thesis of justification for anger - I would say that it is justified to be angry at the SITUATION, and yes frustrated with certain, people, but I do not think it is justified, and in fact I think it's dangerous, to hate Republicans. We can't lump them all into a category, we can't stereotype them, and we can't alienate them. We have to understand why they are thinking and voting the way they are, and find common ground with them. To be perfectly honest, I've had more reasonable conversations with Republicans than many liberals. Liberals are very, very shouty. We need to be less shouty and more listeny.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7743.0,"score_ratio":1.44}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkt0s7w","c_root_id_B":"dkspxeu","created_at_utc_A":1501180336,"created_at_utc_B":1501169493,"score_A":36,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"While not a republican, I think I can answer somewhat.   Yes of course you have reason to be angry. Everybody does. But should you? I think that is just unhelpful. Instead I recommend: start talking to republicans.  To your points:  **1. That republicans have more power** Republicans have higher political influence currently. But that is because people are electing republicans. Which is first and foremost Democrats not putting up electable alternatives, and stupid to blame on republicans.  Most people live in cities. So in absolute numbers democrats could easily have had more political power if they had come up with electable candidates and platform.  (That said, whether or not the electoral college is ideal may or may not be the case. But that is not republicans fault.)  **2. That republican policies are \"dangerous\"** This is just partisanship. Trust me \"angry\" republicans think just the same about the other side. The solution is to talk to each-other to hear the perspectives on the other side and negotiate a middle-ground. Plus you might convince someone. (Which is the opposite of staying in your camp and saying the other side is dangerous). Not saying republicans are great at this of course, but this is the big challenge of our time in America. And something by the way we are much better at in my country Norway, so I know this can be done.   **3. That republicans can't be reasoned with.** Again, this is pure partisanship on your end. When you see republicans say the same about democrats, what do you think? That they are \"just wrong\" and you are \"just right\"? How about you are both just wrong about this thing and need to start talking to each other? If you really listened you will probably find genuine perspectives worth integrating. And you both will become smarter by conversing about it so you really understand the qualms of the other side.   **4. That they lack respect and compassion for others.** So sorry to keep repeating myself. But don't you notice that partisans on the other side say the exact same thing? Plus they may have some other unique complaints about democrats. Perhaps that you refuse to deal with reality, or weigh equity above all other values. Or that you don't seem to understand that policies have trade-offs.    Bottom line is. What you are complaining about is of course true. But what the partisans on the other side is complaining about you is also true! The reason a society work is that people then come together and talk about it. Listen and learn the concerns of the other side. Update some opinions perhaps, and then negotiate a middle ground.   Conservatives and liberals do kind of have different roles in society. Conservatives keep the wheel running and take care of the good from the past. Liberals look for new stuff and try to make better ideals. We dont want either without the other. We need both the right and the left, and then we need to talk to each-other.","human_ref_B":"I think the problem is more about how the bases have become increasingly polarized, and the Republican's constant filibusters of things like universal background checks during the Obama Administration, not to their recent use of the Nuclear Option to neuter the power of the filibuster, paints them as huge hypocrites.  As far as anger towards Trump and the republicans are concerned, I'm less angry that they're in power and more angry at the policies they are espousing. Trump signed a bill that lets internet based companies, ISPs especially, sell our information to advertisers without our consent, this bill only had a 6% approval rating.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10843.0,"score_ratio":2.1176470588}
+{"post_id":"6pwix5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Liberal Americans are justified to be angry with Trump supporters and to worry about the future Since the election, there's been various statistics showing that liberals are more pessimistic about the country's future and dislike Trump and many of his supporters. Since the shooting last month (iirc), it's become popular (and easy) to say that liberals should be nicer and more open minded but I believe they would be naive not to worry about Republicans and very passive not to be angry with Republican voters.  Firstly, Republicans have disproportionately high political power. Due to them living in smaller States and rural areas, their votes matter more than those in cities and states like California or New York in the Senate and presidential elections. This means they can impose their ideas on the majority of people even if they are unpopular among the majority (e.g. Trump). This is undemocratic and worrying given their behaviour.  Second, Republicans policies and politicians are genuinely dangerous. Republican policies on health care and government support will almost certainly hurt people and even cost lives. Most political parties wouldn't consider policies as extreme as theirs but they are special in how far right wing they are. Their indifference to climate change, poverty, poor healthcare and inequality means that their policies will actually make America and the world worse. It'd be stupid for liberals to be ok with this. Plus despite Obamacare disproportionately helping Trump supporters, they still want it dismantled just because they see it as a 'win'. How can you not fear someone who hates you so much, they're willing to suffer just to 'beat' you?  Also, Trump and many other Republican politicians show erratic and\/or ammoral behaviour that should be concerning to people. Even mainstream Republicans like McConnel regularly behave appallingly.  Thirdly, Republicans cannot be reasoned with. As can be seen by their contempt for higher education, the CBO, media, science and economics, Republicans don't see truth as objective. They believe it is simply a matter of opinion and anyone or anything which says they're wrong must be biased because there's no way they can actually be wrong. Because of this Republicans will enact policies that are dangerous without any concern for the consequences for the future or even themselves. This erratic behaviour makes them frustrating at best and dangers to themselves and others at worst. Simply put, Republicans could do pretty much anything despite how crazy and stupid it seems. In many ways, Trump personifies the GOP better than John McCain or Mitt Romney ever could because of his combination of ignorance and arrogance.  Finally, they lack respect and compassion for others. As can be seen from policies like gerrymandering and voter suppression, tactics like the obstruction from the GOP on things like the Supreme Court and just their general behaviour like the nomination of Trump who is basically a prejudiced bully, Republicans seem more motivated by a need to beat liberals and to control America than any desire for self improvement or any moral concerns. Their indifference to problems like racism, sexism and homophobia should anger liberals. Also their lack of concern for police shootings or sexual assault and their contempt for abortion makes them a genuine danger to women and minorities. Their priority seems to be to preserve a social order in which they have their values imposed on those they view to be inferior (e.g. women, minorities, the poor, LGBT) even if it's at their own expense.  So am I wrong about how bad Republicans are or should liberals not fear them because Republicans will quickly lose power?  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dkssxth","c_root_id_B":"dkspxeu","created_at_utc_A":1501172593,"created_at_utc_B":1501169493,"score_A":25,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"1.) I am a fellow liberal and I know exactly where you're coming from with a lot of these points. HOWEVER, I do think it is very important to differentiate Trump supporters from all Republicans. And not everyone \"supports\" Trump for the same reasons. Some don't support him at all, but are uncomfortable with how far left the Democratic candidates were, so felt pressured to vote for him. I have a cousin from NJ who is an Israeli citizen, and quietly hates pretty much everything Trump is doing, but feels like he needs to support him because most other candidates made Israelis really scared for their security (that's a whole other convo and not interested in having that debate here). Many republicans actually dislike Trump quite a bit. I'm noticing a lot of outrage specifically among my military vet Republican friends, and anyone even remotely moderate. My point is that it isn't quite fair to lump everyone into these categories. They are applicable to some people, of course. But NOT applicable to all Republicans by any means. People had a wide variety of reasons for voting for him (or not voting for him but supporting the acting president)  2.) It is important to also make the distinction between the Republicans in office and the Republicans who are our peers here on the ground. Our peers have most of the same wants and needs and fears that we have. Despite what the media might want you to think, everyone wants jobs, everyone wants health care, most people aren't hideous racists, most people don't really care what gay people do, and most people know that Muslims aren't all terrorists. The bad stuff is happening in the GOVERNMENT, because the types of people putting themselves up for election are absolutely awful. I have a Republican friend in the south who said that he's just horrified because he never has any good choices to vote for in his state and local elections. It's just bad, shitty and terrible. He is extremely frustrated. The Republicans in the government are beholden to a lot of interests other than ours. And the Democrats too, frankly. Corporate money in our politics is a major, major issue and at the end of the day, constituents aren't the ones who really matter.  3.) And to address your thesis of justification for anger - I would say that it is justified to be angry at the SITUATION, and yes frustrated with certain, people, but I do not think it is justified, and in fact I think it's dangerous, to hate Republicans. We can't lump them all into a category, we can't stereotype them, and we can't alienate them. We have to understand why they are thinking and voting the way they are, and find common ground with them. To be perfectly honest, I've had more reasonable conversations with Republicans than many liberals. Liberals are very, very shouty. We need to be less shouty and more listeny.","human_ref_B":"I think the problem is more about how the bases have become increasingly polarized, and the Republican's constant filibusters of things like universal background checks during the Obama Administration, not to their recent use of the Nuclear Option to neuter the power of the filibuster, paints them as huge hypocrites.  As far as anger towards Trump and the republicans are concerned, I'm less angry that they're in power and more angry at the policies they are espousing. Trump signed a bill that lets internet based companies, ISPs especially, sell our information to advertisers without our consent, this bill only had a 6% approval rating.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3100.0,"score_ratio":1.4705882353}
+{"post_id":"lpah82","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: If a video game company is going to file lawsuits or issue DMCA takedown notices against piracy sites, it is their obligation to provide legitimate primary sources to purchase or otherwise obtain the affected titles I want to preface this by clarifying that I do not condone video game piracy. That said, I do acknowledge the argument in favor of it, especially in this context.  The video game piracy debate is nothing new, and a cursory glance at this sub will tell you that there are those who fall on both sides of the spectrum on this topic. It's not my intention to delve too deeply into the morality of video game piracy with this post, but rather to address accountability of the companies producing the games.  To expand on the title, a sizeable amount of video game piracy centers around games which are, for one reason or another, not readily available to the mass market. These generally tend to include games which saw a physical release long enough ago that they are no longer available through primary distribution. If you didn't have the opportunity to purchase one of these games during that release window then there are essentially two options available if you wish to play it: Either purchase the game secondhand, or pirate it. Obviously one of these is the more morally questionable choice, but the common thread between the two is that either way, no money is going to the game developers at this point.  Now for where the main issues come into play. Obviously game companies want to protect their IPs, so when piracy sites begin sharing those games for free, the best course of action seems like it would be to take them down. However, in many cases this has the additional effect of cutting off access for new players to experience these games.  A great example I want to ~~pick on~~ focus on is Nintendo, a company that is notorious for issuing DMCA takedown notices when piracy websites come into play. At the same time, however, for the majority of the affected titles Nintendo has refused to provide a legal, accessible, and most importantly *primary* source to purchase them. Don't get me wrong, things like used game stores are great, but a lot of places, particularly countries that never saw a formal release of those games, have limited access to and supply of them. In addition their copies of games tend to be a bit worse for wear, with no quality guarantee, plus the game company doesn't profit off of them, which...isn't that a big part of why they come down on piracy sites? Because someone else is profiting off of their IP? I dunno, that last bit went on a bit of a tangent.  I will acknowledge the good that releasing products like the NES and SNES Classic did, plus the access we have to classic games through Nintendo Switch Online, but the currently available 72 NES games and 42 SNES games are just a drop in the bucket compared to the **1433** games that were produced between them. That's a mere **8%** of a massive game library available in modern format, and those are just the first two consoles. The Game Boy Advance, Nintendo's third highest selling console of all time, handheld or otherwise, is historically the most popular category for video game piracy websites. The console boasts a library of 1498 games, and 74 of these games are currently available for purchase via Nintendo Virtual Console (which at the time of making this post is the only first party way I am aware of to obtain a majority of GBA games), giving us an even more pathetic 5% of availability. The best part? When comparing this list of available games to the top 40 best-selling GBA games of all time, how many do you think made the cut? Surely Nintendo would at least want to capitalize on the popularity of one of their best selling handheld consoles, right? Well that number comes to...16 games. So not only did we get laughable representation of the library, but barely a fifth of this number represent the games players are most likely to seek out, enjoy, and most importantly in this argument's case, pirate.  Numbers, percentages and Nintendo-shaming aside, what am I getting at here? While piracy sites show there is clearly a demand for these older games, many game developers seem to stubbornly deny a way for players to gain access to them. That or the way they go about it is temporary and convoluted (Looking at you 3D All-Stars.) If a video game company is going to cut off the only access many younger users have to these games, legal or otherwise, the absolute, most basic courtesy they could show would be to make them available in a modern format. Digital downloads, game streaming services, it doesn't matter how you do it guys, most people will be willing to pay you if it means having an easy way to play your games without worrying about the legal ramifications.","c_root_id_A":"goaaxz8","c_root_id_B":"goabuof","created_at_utc_A":1613953761,"created_at_utc_B":1613954237,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I'd argue that while it's a dick thing to do, no one is forced to provide access to their work.  If I make 10 paintings that are lit, I mean the absolute tits, I'm talking Picasso couldn't touch, everyone will want one (cause, I'm mean, it's me, obviously). I can sell the paintings under the **express condition** that they aren't replicated. That's my right as an artist. Even if everyone wants to witness my artistic genius, I can choose to sell only to private collectors that won't have public showings. I'm under no obligation to cave to public opinion.  It would be a dick move to not allow people to have that moment of happiness that can only occur upon glimpsing my genius, but there is no law that says an artist must sell or allow copies if a work is liked by X or more people.","human_ref_B":"If you own a product it's your choice how you want to sell it, or not.  If I go to your home and demand you sell me something, if you refuse then I get to steal it?  Also, seriously, copyright law actually requires that you have control over your product. That is it's purpose.   If you allow other people to sell your product  without permission, then if you want to sell it in the future or renew the copyright.the other seller actually has a legal argument that they are the rightful owner because they have been making use of the product, not you.  It is not feasible that a company sell e ery product they ever made forever, but that also doesn't mean they should have to forfeit ever being able to sell it again if they decide to in the future.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":476.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"lpah82","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: If a video game company is going to file lawsuits or issue DMCA takedown notices against piracy sites, it is their obligation to provide legitimate primary sources to purchase or otherwise obtain the affected titles I want to preface this by clarifying that I do not condone video game piracy. That said, I do acknowledge the argument in favor of it, especially in this context.  The video game piracy debate is nothing new, and a cursory glance at this sub will tell you that there are those who fall on both sides of the spectrum on this topic. It's not my intention to delve too deeply into the morality of video game piracy with this post, but rather to address accountability of the companies producing the games.  To expand on the title, a sizeable amount of video game piracy centers around games which are, for one reason or another, not readily available to the mass market. These generally tend to include games which saw a physical release long enough ago that they are no longer available through primary distribution. If you didn't have the opportunity to purchase one of these games during that release window then there are essentially two options available if you wish to play it: Either purchase the game secondhand, or pirate it. Obviously one of these is the more morally questionable choice, but the common thread between the two is that either way, no money is going to the game developers at this point.  Now for where the main issues come into play. Obviously game companies want to protect their IPs, so when piracy sites begin sharing those games for free, the best course of action seems like it would be to take them down. However, in many cases this has the additional effect of cutting off access for new players to experience these games.  A great example I want to ~~pick on~~ focus on is Nintendo, a company that is notorious for issuing DMCA takedown notices when piracy websites come into play. At the same time, however, for the majority of the affected titles Nintendo has refused to provide a legal, accessible, and most importantly *primary* source to purchase them. Don't get me wrong, things like used game stores are great, but a lot of places, particularly countries that never saw a formal release of those games, have limited access to and supply of them. In addition their copies of games tend to be a bit worse for wear, with no quality guarantee, plus the game company doesn't profit off of them, which...isn't that a big part of why they come down on piracy sites? Because someone else is profiting off of their IP? I dunno, that last bit went on a bit of a tangent.  I will acknowledge the good that releasing products like the NES and SNES Classic did, plus the access we have to classic games through Nintendo Switch Online, but the currently available 72 NES games and 42 SNES games are just a drop in the bucket compared to the **1433** games that were produced between them. That's a mere **8%** of a massive game library available in modern format, and those are just the first two consoles. The Game Boy Advance, Nintendo's third highest selling console of all time, handheld or otherwise, is historically the most popular category for video game piracy websites. The console boasts a library of 1498 games, and 74 of these games are currently available for purchase via Nintendo Virtual Console (which at the time of making this post is the only first party way I am aware of to obtain a majority of GBA games), giving us an even more pathetic 5% of availability. The best part? When comparing this list of available games to the top 40 best-selling GBA games of all time, how many do you think made the cut? Surely Nintendo would at least want to capitalize on the popularity of one of their best selling handheld consoles, right? Well that number comes to...16 games. So not only did we get laughable representation of the library, but barely a fifth of this number represent the games players are most likely to seek out, enjoy, and most importantly in this argument's case, pirate.  Numbers, percentages and Nintendo-shaming aside, what am I getting at here? While piracy sites show there is clearly a demand for these older games, many game developers seem to stubbornly deny a way for players to gain access to them. That or the way they go about it is temporary and convoluted (Looking at you 3D All-Stars.) If a video game company is going to cut off the only access many younger users have to these games, legal or otherwise, the absolute, most basic courtesy they could show would be to make them available in a modern format. Digital downloads, game streaming services, it doesn't matter how you do it guys, most people will be willing to pay you if it means having an easy way to play your games without worrying about the legal ramifications.","c_root_id_A":"goab4d8","c_root_id_B":"goabuof","created_at_utc_A":1613953856,"created_at_utc_B":1613954237,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Video games aren't owned by one company\/person they're often a complex collection of different pieces of intellectual property which are own by main groups. Many companies don't have the rights to sell or distribute Video Games after a particular date.","human_ref_B":"If you own a product it's your choice how you want to sell it, or not.  If I go to your home and demand you sell me something, if you refuse then I get to steal it?  Also, seriously, copyright law actually requires that you have control over your product. That is it's purpose.   If you allow other people to sell your product  without permission, then if you want to sell it in the future or renew the copyright.the other seller actually has a legal argument that they are the rightful owner because they have been making use of the product, not you.  It is not feasible that a company sell e ery product they ever made forever, but that also doesn't mean they should have to forfeit ever being able to sell it again if they decide to in the future.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":381.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"lpah82","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: If a video game company is going to file lawsuits or issue DMCA takedown notices against piracy sites, it is their obligation to provide legitimate primary sources to purchase or otherwise obtain the affected titles I want to preface this by clarifying that I do not condone video game piracy. That said, I do acknowledge the argument in favor of it, especially in this context.  The video game piracy debate is nothing new, and a cursory glance at this sub will tell you that there are those who fall on both sides of the spectrum on this topic. It's not my intention to delve too deeply into the morality of video game piracy with this post, but rather to address accountability of the companies producing the games.  To expand on the title, a sizeable amount of video game piracy centers around games which are, for one reason or another, not readily available to the mass market. These generally tend to include games which saw a physical release long enough ago that they are no longer available through primary distribution. If you didn't have the opportunity to purchase one of these games during that release window then there are essentially two options available if you wish to play it: Either purchase the game secondhand, or pirate it. Obviously one of these is the more morally questionable choice, but the common thread between the two is that either way, no money is going to the game developers at this point.  Now for where the main issues come into play. Obviously game companies want to protect their IPs, so when piracy sites begin sharing those games for free, the best course of action seems like it would be to take them down. However, in many cases this has the additional effect of cutting off access for new players to experience these games.  A great example I want to ~~pick on~~ focus on is Nintendo, a company that is notorious for issuing DMCA takedown notices when piracy websites come into play. At the same time, however, for the majority of the affected titles Nintendo has refused to provide a legal, accessible, and most importantly *primary* source to purchase them. Don't get me wrong, things like used game stores are great, but a lot of places, particularly countries that never saw a formal release of those games, have limited access to and supply of them. In addition their copies of games tend to be a bit worse for wear, with no quality guarantee, plus the game company doesn't profit off of them, which...isn't that a big part of why they come down on piracy sites? Because someone else is profiting off of their IP? I dunno, that last bit went on a bit of a tangent.  I will acknowledge the good that releasing products like the NES and SNES Classic did, plus the access we have to classic games through Nintendo Switch Online, but the currently available 72 NES games and 42 SNES games are just a drop in the bucket compared to the **1433** games that were produced between them. That's a mere **8%** of a massive game library available in modern format, and those are just the first two consoles. The Game Boy Advance, Nintendo's third highest selling console of all time, handheld or otherwise, is historically the most popular category for video game piracy websites. The console boasts a library of 1498 games, and 74 of these games are currently available for purchase via Nintendo Virtual Console (which at the time of making this post is the only first party way I am aware of to obtain a majority of GBA games), giving us an even more pathetic 5% of availability. The best part? When comparing this list of available games to the top 40 best-selling GBA games of all time, how many do you think made the cut? Surely Nintendo would at least want to capitalize on the popularity of one of their best selling handheld consoles, right? Well that number comes to...16 games. So not only did we get laughable representation of the library, but barely a fifth of this number represent the games players are most likely to seek out, enjoy, and most importantly in this argument's case, pirate.  Numbers, percentages and Nintendo-shaming aside, what am I getting at here? While piracy sites show there is clearly a demand for these older games, many game developers seem to stubbornly deny a way for players to gain access to them. That or the way they go about it is temporary and convoluted (Looking at you 3D All-Stars.) If a video game company is going to cut off the only access many younger users have to these games, legal or otherwise, the absolute, most basic courtesy they could show would be to make them available in a modern format. Digital downloads, game streaming services, it doesn't matter how you do it guys, most people will be willing to pay you if it means having an easy way to play your games without worrying about the legal ramifications.","c_root_id_A":"goafk9y","c_root_id_B":"goab4d8","created_at_utc_A":1613956187,"created_at_utc_B":1613953856,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Other users have made good arguments as to why a company isn't *obligated* to offer their product for sale, even if it's frustrating for people who want a certain game.   Maybe your view could be changed to be that companies would be *smart* to offer these games for sale because clearly there are potential customers out there who are probably willing to pay for this game. it would prevent piracy & the company would make money. but, this isn't the same as an obligation. the company can do whatever they want with their product.","human_ref_B":"Video games aren't owned by one company\/person they're often a complex collection of different pieces of intellectual property which are own by main groups. Many companies don't have the rights to sell or distribute Video Games after a particular date.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2331.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"lpah82","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: If a video game company is going to file lawsuits or issue DMCA takedown notices against piracy sites, it is their obligation to provide legitimate primary sources to purchase or otherwise obtain the affected titles I want to preface this by clarifying that I do not condone video game piracy. That said, I do acknowledge the argument in favor of it, especially in this context.  The video game piracy debate is nothing new, and a cursory glance at this sub will tell you that there are those who fall on both sides of the spectrum on this topic. It's not my intention to delve too deeply into the morality of video game piracy with this post, but rather to address accountability of the companies producing the games.  To expand on the title, a sizeable amount of video game piracy centers around games which are, for one reason or another, not readily available to the mass market. These generally tend to include games which saw a physical release long enough ago that they are no longer available through primary distribution. If you didn't have the opportunity to purchase one of these games during that release window then there are essentially two options available if you wish to play it: Either purchase the game secondhand, or pirate it. Obviously one of these is the more morally questionable choice, but the common thread between the two is that either way, no money is going to the game developers at this point.  Now for where the main issues come into play. Obviously game companies want to protect their IPs, so when piracy sites begin sharing those games for free, the best course of action seems like it would be to take them down. However, in many cases this has the additional effect of cutting off access for new players to experience these games.  A great example I want to ~~pick on~~ focus on is Nintendo, a company that is notorious for issuing DMCA takedown notices when piracy websites come into play. At the same time, however, for the majority of the affected titles Nintendo has refused to provide a legal, accessible, and most importantly *primary* source to purchase them. Don't get me wrong, things like used game stores are great, but a lot of places, particularly countries that never saw a formal release of those games, have limited access to and supply of them. In addition their copies of games tend to be a bit worse for wear, with no quality guarantee, plus the game company doesn't profit off of them, which...isn't that a big part of why they come down on piracy sites? Because someone else is profiting off of their IP? I dunno, that last bit went on a bit of a tangent.  I will acknowledge the good that releasing products like the NES and SNES Classic did, plus the access we have to classic games through Nintendo Switch Online, but the currently available 72 NES games and 42 SNES games are just a drop in the bucket compared to the **1433** games that were produced between them. That's a mere **8%** of a massive game library available in modern format, and those are just the first two consoles. The Game Boy Advance, Nintendo's third highest selling console of all time, handheld or otherwise, is historically the most popular category for video game piracy websites. The console boasts a library of 1498 games, and 74 of these games are currently available for purchase via Nintendo Virtual Console (which at the time of making this post is the only first party way I am aware of to obtain a majority of GBA games), giving us an even more pathetic 5% of availability. The best part? When comparing this list of available games to the top 40 best-selling GBA games of all time, how many do you think made the cut? Surely Nintendo would at least want to capitalize on the popularity of one of their best selling handheld consoles, right? Well that number comes to...16 games. So not only did we get laughable representation of the library, but barely a fifth of this number represent the games players are most likely to seek out, enjoy, and most importantly in this argument's case, pirate.  Numbers, percentages and Nintendo-shaming aside, what am I getting at here? While piracy sites show there is clearly a demand for these older games, many game developers seem to stubbornly deny a way for players to gain access to them. That or the way they go about it is temporary and convoluted (Looking at you 3D All-Stars.) If a video game company is going to cut off the only access many younger users have to these games, legal or otherwise, the absolute, most basic courtesy they could show would be to make them available in a modern format. Digital downloads, game streaming services, it doesn't matter how you do it guys, most people will be willing to pay you if it means having an easy way to play your games without worrying about the legal ramifications.","c_root_id_A":"goad28t","c_root_id_B":"goafk9y","created_at_utc_A":1613954880,"created_at_utc_B":1613956187,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Alright so you create awesome musical tracks. Let's say you're a one-man-band doing all the instruments and vocals and songwriting yourself so there's minimal complexity, and you decide you're going to sell your songs through Band camp digitally for a period of time, and have 1000 pressings made to disc for physical copies to sell. You're making an active choice to make this album a limited-time deal, only 1000 people get to own a legit physical copy and as for digital download if they don't snag it in 60 days, well that's their problem.  So the 60 days are up and all the physical copies are sold and you've made some money and start working on another album. In the meantime, people start sharing digital copies en masse online to those who missed out. It shouldn't be a problem right because you've already made your money? Okay, what if you intended to re-release it later, or select certain tracks to be later included in a large run \"best of\" compilation?  You created these songs entirely by yourself. It is your right to profit from them or distribute them as you see fit or even withhold them from distribution. It is your right if you so choose to release them absolutely for free, or to charge per track\/album, or to upload them to YouTube and just make a bit of ad revenue from plays, because you are the one who put all the work into making it, and because after a time (ignoring ridiculous stretches of copyright law) it becomes public domain to be freely shared anyway.  In the same way, It is Nintendo or whoever's right to distribute or not distribute whatever they please. It's common for a first run to be sold for a time, then to revisit it down the road for a new generation, like re-releasing A Link To The Past for that SNES Classic console they were selling a while back. The people who missed out by not buying it during these times of release, or who can't source a legitimate copy somewhere, are not the problem of the company. Having been for sale once upon a time does not entitle me to be able to have a copy available to me, whether free or paid.","human_ref_B":"Other users have made good arguments as to why a company isn't *obligated* to offer their product for sale, even if it's frustrating for people who want a certain game.   Maybe your view could be changed to be that companies would be *smart* to offer these games for sale because clearly there are potential customers out there who are probably willing to pay for this game. it would prevent piracy & the company would make money. but, this isn't the same as an obligation. the company can do whatever they want with their product.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1307.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imlspos","c_root_id_B":"imln6nm","created_at_utc_A":1661997053,"created_at_utc_B":1661994629,"score_A":44,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"My grandfather is a pretty terrible dude whose primary point of respect is 'he's old'. That's been the party line I've heard my entire life. First it was \"oh just ignore that, he's 70!\", all the way through his 100th birthday a few months ago. Props to him, he's old, and in decent shape and mental fitness for a 100 yo man.  But he's an asshole.   My deceased grandparents include a drunk who abused his wife, who abused her kids. My living grandfathers wife died when I was about 16, and she was educated, philanthropic, and witty, but also classist and approximately as racist as a lot of folk from her time.  Older people who earn the respect by being good people, who support and cultivate newer generations, they're rarities and wonderful. They, like any other good person, are a blast to be around, and deserve our respect and care.   But this notion that old folk deserve respect simply because they're old folk? Nah. Pass.","human_ref_B":">outright inciting violence against seniors.  Example?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2424.0,"score_ratio":3.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imlspos","c_root_id_B":"imljy16","created_at_utc_A":1661997053,"created_at_utc_B":1661993248,"score_A":44,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"My grandfather is a pretty terrible dude whose primary point of respect is 'he's old'. That's been the party line I've heard my entire life. First it was \"oh just ignore that, he's 70!\", all the way through his 100th birthday a few months ago. Props to him, he's old, and in decent shape and mental fitness for a 100 yo man.  But he's an asshole.   My deceased grandparents include a drunk who abused his wife, who abused her kids. My living grandfathers wife died when I was about 16, and she was educated, philanthropic, and witty, but also classist and approximately as racist as a lot of folk from her time.  Older people who earn the respect by being good people, who support and cultivate newer generations, they're rarities and wonderful. They, like any other good person, are a blast to be around, and deserve our respect and care.   But this notion that old folk deserve respect simply because they're old folk? Nah. Pass.","human_ref_B":"What kind of harassment and scams does she get? That stuff is almost exclusively from India, Pakistan, Nigeria etc","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3805.0,"score_ratio":6.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imljqsb","c_root_id_B":"imlspos","created_at_utc_A":1661993159,"created_at_utc_B":1661997053,"score_A":6,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"I get tons of people expecting me to treat my grandpa with more respect and giving him tons of leeway just because he's old. I cannot argue with your lived experience but it is certainly not mine.","human_ref_B":"My grandfather is a pretty terrible dude whose primary point of respect is 'he's old'. That's been the party line I've heard my entire life. First it was \"oh just ignore that, he's 70!\", all the way through his 100th birthday a few months ago. Props to him, he's old, and in decent shape and mental fitness for a 100 yo man.  But he's an asshole.   My deceased grandparents include a drunk who abused his wife, who abused her kids. My living grandfathers wife died when I was about 16, and she was educated, philanthropic, and witty, but also classist and approximately as racist as a lot of folk from her time.  Older people who earn the respect by being good people, who support and cultivate newer generations, they're rarities and wonderful. They, like any other good person, are a blast to be around, and deserve our respect and care.   But this notion that old folk deserve respect simply because they're old folk? Nah. Pass.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3894.0,"score_ratio":7.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imlj24u","c_root_id_B":"imlspos","created_at_utc_A":1661992855,"created_at_utc_B":1661997053,"score_A":3,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"No fuck the old people they stole our future  this guy made a good point on why the baby boomers fucked over the future generations  https:\/\/youtu.be\/ZuXzvjBYW8A  Basically they generation was so big they could vote for things to benefit them and they continue to use that to give them benefits and deny the younger people benefits.","human_ref_B":"My grandfather is a pretty terrible dude whose primary point of respect is 'he's old'. That's been the party line I've heard my entire life. First it was \"oh just ignore that, he's 70!\", all the way through his 100th birthday a few months ago. Props to him, he's old, and in decent shape and mental fitness for a 100 yo man.  But he's an asshole.   My deceased grandparents include a drunk who abused his wife, who abused her kids. My living grandfathers wife died when I was about 16, and she was educated, philanthropic, and witty, but also classist and approximately as racist as a lot of folk from her time.  Older people who earn the respect by being good people, who support and cultivate newer generations, they're rarities and wonderful. They, like any other good person, are a blast to be around, and deserve our respect and care.   But this notion that old folk deserve respect simply because they're old folk? Nah. Pass.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4198.0,"score_ratio":14.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imln6nm","c_root_id_B":"imljy16","created_at_utc_A":1661994629,"created_at_utc_B":1661993248,"score_A":14,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">outright inciting violence against seniors.  Example?","human_ref_B":"What kind of harassment and scams does she get? That stuff is almost exclusively from India, Pakistan, Nigeria etc","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1381.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imljqsb","c_root_id_B":"imln6nm","created_at_utc_A":1661993159,"created_at_utc_B":1661994629,"score_A":6,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I get tons of people expecting me to treat my grandpa with more respect and giving him tons of leeway just because he's old. I cannot argue with your lived experience but it is certainly not mine.","human_ref_B":">outright inciting violence against seniors.  Example?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1470.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imlj24u","c_root_id_B":"imln6nm","created_at_utc_A":1661992855,"created_at_utc_B":1661994629,"score_A":3,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"No fuck the old people they stole our future  this guy made a good point on why the baby boomers fucked over the future generations  https:\/\/youtu.be\/ZuXzvjBYW8A  Basically they generation was so big they could vote for things to benefit them and they continue to use that to give them benefits and deny the younger people benefits.","human_ref_B":">outright inciting violence against seniors.  Example?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1774.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imlub49","c_root_id_B":"imljy16","created_at_utc_A":1661997763,"created_at_utc_B":1661993248,"score_A":12,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Elder abuse need to be stopped, but i dont like the idea of respecting someone who routinely declares that they wwant me dead :\/","human_ref_B":"What kind of harassment and scams does she get? That stuff is almost exclusively from India, Pakistan, Nigeria etc","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4515.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imlub49","c_root_id_B":"imljqsb","created_at_utc_A":1661997763,"created_at_utc_B":1661993159,"score_A":12,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Elder abuse need to be stopped, but i dont like the idea of respecting someone who routinely declares that they wwant me dead :\/","human_ref_B":"I get tons of people expecting me to treat my grandpa with more respect and giving him tons of leeway just because he's old. I cannot argue with your lived experience but it is certainly not mine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4604.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imlj24u","c_root_id_B":"imlub49","created_at_utc_A":1661992855,"created_at_utc_B":1661997763,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"No fuck the old people they stole our future  this guy made a good point on why the baby boomers fucked over the future generations  https:\/\/youtu.be\/ZuXzvjBYW8A  Basically they generation was so big they could vote for things to benefit them and they continue to use that to give them benefits and deny the younger people benefits.","human_ref_B":"Elder abuse need to be stopped, but i dont like the idea of respecting someone who routinely declares that they wwant me dead :\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4908.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imljqsb","c_root_id_B":"imljy16","created_at_utc_A":1661993159,"created_at_utc_B":1661993248,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I get tons of people expecting me to treat my grandpa with more respect and giving him tons of leeway just because he's old. I cannot argue with your lived experience but it is certainly not mine.","human_ref_B":"What kind of harassment and scams does she get? That stuff is almost exclusively from India, Pakistan, Nigeria etc","labels":0,"seconds_difference":89.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imljy16","c_root_id_B":"imlj24u","created_at_utc_A":1661993248,"created_at_utc_B":1661992855,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What kind of harassment and scams does she get? That stuff is almost exclusively from India, Pakistan, Nigeria etc","human_ref_B":"No fuck the old people they stole our future  this guy made a good point on why the baby boomers fucked over the future generations  https:\/\/youtu.be\/ZuXzvjBYW8A  Basically they generation was so big they could vote for things to benefit them and they continue to use that to give them benefits and deny the younger people benefits.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":393.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imljqsb","c_root_id_B":"imlj24u","created_at_utc_A":1661993159,"created_at_utc_B":1661992855,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I get tons of people expecting me to treat my grandpa with more respect and giving him tons of leeway just because he's old. I cannot argue with your lived experience but it is certainly not mine.","human_ref_B":"No fuck the old people they stole our future  this guy made a good point on why the baby boomers fucked over the future generations  https:\/\/youtu.be\/ZuXzvjBYW8A  Basically they generation was so big they could vote for things to benefit them and they continue to use that to give them benefits and deny the younger people benefits.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":304.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"imlj24u","c_root_id_B":"immkqf9","created_at_utc_A":1661992855,"created_at_utc_B":1662012570,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"No fuck the old people they stole our future  this guy made a good point on why the baby boomers fucked over the future generations  https:\/\/youtu.be\/ZuXzvjBYW8A  Basically they generation was so big they could vote for things to benefit them and they continue to use that to give them benefits and deny the younger people benefits.","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure what specifically you want changed in your view. Pretty much everyone agrees that scamming people isn't okay, nor is it acceptable to make fun of people for their appearance, but none of these things are unique to being old. Do you think old people are deserving of more respect by virtue of being old? What does that look like specifically?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19715.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"x2tftg","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a \"end all be all\" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed.   For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are \"ugly\" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself).  I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go \"Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways\".","c_root_id_A":"immsf7t","c_root_id_B":"imlj24u","created_at_utc_A":1662018626,"created_at_utc_B":1661992855,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Let\u2019s look at the numbers    Old people have one of the highest voting powers and use it poorly. No matter wich matric u use","human_ref_B":"No fuck the old people they stole our future  this guy made a good point on why the baby boomers fucked over the future generations  https:\/\/youtu.be\/ZuXzvjBYW8A  Basically they generation was so big they could vote for things to benefit them and they continue to use that to give them benefits and deny the younger people benefits.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25771.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1dpar9","c_root_id_B":"h1dsb6o","created_at_utc_A":1623398781,"created_at_utc_B":1623401594,"score_A":11,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"Where can I find a record of Google's voting patterns?","human_ref_B":"Corporations dont care about anything. And I dont even mean that in a negative, it's a company not a person. What would it even mean for Google to care about suicide?  Also more generally it is perfectly possible for a person to care about something but not do anything about it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2813.0,"score_ratio":3.0909090909}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1dpar9","c_root_id_B":"h1dy7vz","created_at_utc_A":1623398781,"created_at_utc_B":1623406992,"score_A":11,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Where can I find a record of Google's voting patterns?","human_ref_B":"OP is just virtue signaling political views.   None of those issues has much if anything to do with suicide.  Suicide stems from mental illness or trauma. A living wage isn't going to make mental illness go away. Access to mental health care is offered to anyone often free or on a sliding scale   As someone who has attempted suicide and been hospitalized for suicidal ideation I can assure you none of those things matter. I was making good money, had a nice home and good insurance.  Robin Williams, Anthony Bourdain, Ernest Hemingway, the list of wealthy people with access to healthcare who still suicide shows that this entire post is a misguided attempt to make suicide political","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8211.0,"score_ratio":2.0909090909}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1dpar9","c_root_id_B":"h1eis21","created_at_utc_A":1623398781,"created_at_utc_B":1623419641,"score_A":11,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Where can I find a record of Google's voting patterns?","human_ref_B":"\"You cant <political view> and <care about x>\" This is a formula for thought I've seen a lot and I think it's a bad way to think about others, as well as one of the reasons there is such a big divide in US between Republicans and Democrats. I believe it's bad because it's close minded: You are completely shutting out the possibility that someone else could have a different political view than you, but still share the same values. It refuses to believe the possibility that there is an alternate reason that they have a different political belief, which pretty much allows you to shut out anything they say before they have a chance to hear it. Maybe a) they have competing values and have to make a tough choice between them, b) they have other information that you don't have which leads them to a different result, or c) they have a different logic which leads them to believe the end result of the politics won't be achieved with those means. Each of those 3 reasons, and there are probably others I'm missing, is an example of a reason people could share the same values and have different political views.     It is important to differentiate between core values and political beliefs so that people don't become too divided - when people are too divided they tend to shut each other out. When people shut each other out, they miss opportunities to learn from each other: not listening to someone in situation b) above is a missed opportunity to learn something which could change your view.     That said, it seems that most of your points above are focused on one possible reason for suicide: not having enough money. I tend to agree with most of the political views above but I don't know how companies are supposed to play a role in it. Google pays their employees reasonably well, so seems like they are doing their part.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20860.0,"score_ratio":1.2727272727}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1e334a","c_root_id_B":"h1eis21","created_at_utc_A":1623410742,"created_at_utc_B":1623419641,"score_A":6,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"1. Companies don't vote. So, all the cases where you mention \"you can't vote...\" don't apply to companies. They are not voting in any election or referendum. I guess what you're meaning is that they give money to certain candidates who then, once elected, vote like that. But that's a very complicated issue as the candidates usually favor tons of things and the corporation may favor one of them but have no opinion or are even against some others. Have you ever found a candidate who agreed 100% with you on every single issue? If you voted for him\/her did you then also support those things that you disagreed with him\/her? 2. Almost all your points are about economy. Poverty can be a cause of suicide, but I hardly think that it is one of the main causes. We're vastly wealthier now than, say 60 years ago, in absolute terms, but the suicides are of the same order as they were then.  3. I don't understand what \"hoarding houses\" or \"raising rents\" have anything to do with companies like Google (that you mentioned by name). Are they a significant landlord?","human_ref_B":"\"You cant <political view> and <care about x>\" This is a formula for thought I've seen a lot and I think it's a bad way to think about others, as well as one of the reasons there is such a big divide in US between Republicans and Democrats. I believe it's bad because it's close minded: You are completely shutting out the possibility that someone else could have a different political view than you, but still share the same values. It refuses to believe the possibility that there is an alternate reason that they have a different political belief, which pretty much allows you to shut out anything they say before they have a chance to hear it. Maybe a) they have competing values and have to make a tough choice between them, b) they have other information that you don't have which leads them to a different result, or c) they have a different logic which leads them to believe the end result of the politics won't be achieved with those means. Each of those 3 reasons, and there are probably others I'm missing, is an example of a reason people could share the same values and have different political views.     It is important to differentiate between core values and political beliefs so that people don't become too divided - when people are too divided they tend to shut each other out. When people shut each other out, they miss opportunities to learn from each other: not listening to someone in situation b) above is a missed opportunity to learn something which could change your view.     That said, it seems that most of your points above are focused on one possible reason for suicide: not having enough money. I tend to agree with most of the political views above but I don't know how companies are supposed to play a role in it. Google pays their employees reasonably well, so seems like they are doing their part.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8899.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1eis21","c_root_id_B":"h1e5k4b","created_at_utc_A":1623419641,"created_at_utc_B":1623412397,"score_A":14,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"\"You cant <political view> and <care about x>\" This is a formula for thought I've seen a lot and I think it's a bad way to think about others, as well as one of the reasons there is such a big divide in US between Republicans and Democrats. I believe it's bad because it's close minded: You are completely shutting out the possibility that someone else could have a different political view than you, but still share the same values. It refuses to believe the possibility that there is an alternate reason that they have a different political belief, which pretty much allows you to shut out anything they say before they have a chance to hear it. Maybe a) they have competing values and have to make a tough choice between them, b) they have other information that you don't have which leads them to a different result, or c) they have a different logic which leads them to believe the end result of the politics won't be achieved with those means. Each of those 3 reasons, and there are probably others I'm missing, is an example of a reason people could share the same values and have different political views.     It is important to differentiate between core values and political beliefs so that people don't become too divided - when people are too divided they tend to shut each other out. When people shut each other out, they miss opportunities to learn from each other: not listening to someone in situation b) above is a missed opportunity to learn something which could change your view.     That said, it seems that most of your points above are focused on one possible reason for suicide: not having enough money. I tend to agree with most of the political views above but I don't know how companies are supposed to play a role in it. Google pays their employees reasonably well, so seems like they are doing their part.","human_ref_B":"I share your suspicious outlook, but my take is different.   Google isn't against those social programs you mentioned. They want higher minimum wage, but again it's not out of benevolence. They just want to crunch the labor market. Google is the big dog. They want barriers to entry for competitors.  Their employees are highly paid, but the environment is stifling and demeaning to human dignity. See James Damore fired for expressing polite opinion when solicited. Chilling effect. My impression of Google is that it's like working in academia where they have perpetual witch hunts. You bully the people at the bottom of the social totem pole out of existence. Then you do it again, and as you keep doing it, the new normal becomes more and more artificial, more and more tenuous, unstable, and psychologically intolerable. The military funds all kinds of university research into how to keep people in a state of high stress so they are highly suggestible and compliant. I think this is what Google's doing. It's a big uncontrolled experiment to push the limits on working conditions to find the exact equilibrium between suffering and suicide.  If you look at their \"mental wellness booths\" or \"cry closets\" or whatever, those things are Orwellian versions of suicide nets. You could call it virtue signaling, but it's not really a good look. There are very few people who would actually bother trying to cite academic gobbledygook to back them up. We call them Kamala Harris voters. Basically you put people in jail based on lies, and laugh about it. This is the executives at Google getting cocky.  If you're unsure of anything, know this: Google used to be the opposite. When Google was making a name for itself, there were no rules. Employees had hookers and cocaine in the office. None of this fair trade soy burgers. None of this diversity. There are video clips of them joking around like an old boys club. It was a cohesive unit on a mission, not isolated individuals looking for ways to backstab each other. The work reflects it. People want out, if it's not too late.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7244.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1ezt0p","c_root_id_B":"h1evwc4","created_at_utc_A":1623427234,"created_at_utc_B":1623425532,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide  Unless you genuinely believe that a Medicare for All program would be a net negative on access to care\/quality of care for all of the people concerned.   >You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.\r   \r  Unless you genuinely believe that a higher minimum wage would increase unemployment and that having a low-paying job is better than having no job at all.   >You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.\r   \r  See above. Also, this doesn't even remotely apply to the only company that you've actually named in this post. The average Google employee is making six figures per year.   >You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.\r   \r  Not sure who, exactly, you're blaming this on. Companies that might actually have low wages for workers aren't the kinds of companies that have the ability to hoard housing or influence rent prices.   >You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  Unless you genuinely believe that student loan debt relief would encourage colleges to further raise their already inflated tuition prices or that it would disproportionately benefit higher-income people who don't need their incomes subsidized.  >You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.  So you have evidence that clearly shows the causal relationship between these issues and suicide, and that demonstrates that eliminating these issues would eliminate suicide, right? Whatever evidence you have would also have to explain why people who don't have to worry about any of those issues still commit suicide without contradicting itself.   Also, I can't think of any company that supports giving people PTSD. Can you?  >...but they don't really care. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"...   >   >...If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.  Do you know what this sounds like? It sounds like the guy who goes around saying that morbidly obese people are just slobs who are completely disinterested in their own health. Clearly, if they wanted to actually lose weight, they wouldn't still be overweight after a year.   It sounds like the guy who goes around saying that poor people are just lazy\/stupid. Clearly, if they wanted to actually improve their socioeconomic condition, they would just improve themselves, work harder, and get a better job.  It even sounds like the guy who goes around saying that suicidal people just don't want help and probably deserve the things that they do to themselves. Why else would they emotionally push away people who try to understand their situation and help them?  &#x200B;  Most of the issues you've raised just boil down to you begging the question. Before you can reasonably claim that opposing Medicare for All means that one must not care about suicide, you have to unequivocally prove that the lack of Medicare for All significantly contributes to the incidence of suicide and that implementing Medicare for All would significantly reduce or outright eliminate the incidence of suicide.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d argue there\u2019s a negligible difference between caring, and \u201cpretending\u201d to care.   Let\u2019s say someone is drowning in a lake, and a company saves their life. The company did it for one of two reasons.   * To virtue signal, and drive up profits by \u201cpretending\u201d to care about saving someone from drowning.   * To genuinely save someone\u2019s life, for no other reason than to be kind.   What\u2019s the actual physical difference between the two? Both cases took the exact same action. Both cases have the exact same end result. And if someone is drowning again in the future, they\u2019re both going to act the exact same way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1702.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1e5k4b","c_root_id_B":"h1ezt0p","created_at_utc_A":1623412397,"created_at_utc_B":1623427234,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I share your suspicious outlook, but my take is different.   Google isn't against those social programs you mentioned. They want higher minimum wage, but again it's not out of benevolence. They just want to crunch the labor market. Google is the big dog. They want barriers to entry for competitors.  Their employees are highly paid, but the environment is stifling and demeaning to human dignity. See James Damore fired for expressing polite opinion when solicited. Chilling effect. My impression of Google is that it's like working in academia where they have perpetual witch hunts. You bully the people at the bottom of the social totem pole out of existence. Then you do it again, and as you keep doing it, the new normal becomes more and more artificial, more and more tenuous, unstable, and psychologically intolerable. The military funds all kinds of university research into how to keep people in a state of high stress so they are highly suggestible and compliant. I think this is what Google's doing. It's a big uncontrolled experiment to push the limits on working conditions to find the exact equilibrium between suffering and suicide.  If you look at their \"mental wellness booths\" or \"cry closets\" or whatever, those things are Orwellian versions of suicide nets. You could call it virtue signaling, but it's not really a good look. There are very few people who would actually bother trying to cite academic gobbledygook to back them up. We call them Kamala Harris voters. Basically you put people in jail based on lies, and laugh about it. This is the executives at Google getting cocky.  If you're unsure of anything, know this: Google used to be the opposite. When Google was making a name for itself, there were no rules. Employees had hookers and cocaine in the office. None of this fair trade soy burgers. None of this diversity. There are video clips of them joking around like an old boys club. It was a cohesive unit on a mission, not isolated individuals looking for ways to backstab each other. The work reflects it. People want out, if it's not too late.","human_ref_B":">You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide  Unless you genuinely believe that a Medicare for All program would be a net negative on access to care\/quality of care for all of the people concerned.   >You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.\r   \r  Unless you genuinely believe that a higher minimum wage would increase unemployment and that having a low-paying job is better than having no job at all.   >You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.\r   \r  See above. Also, this doesn't even remotely apply to the only company that you've actually named in this post. The average Google employee is making six figures per year.   >You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.\r   \r  Not sure who, exactly, you're blaming this on. Companies that might actually have low wages for workers aren't the kinds of companies that have the ability to hoard housing or influence rent prices.   >You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  Unless you genuinely believe that student loan debt relief would encourage colleges to further raise their already inflated tuition prices or that it would disproportionately benefit higher-income people who don't need their incomes subsidized.  >You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.  So you have evidence that clearly shows the causal relationship between these issues and suicide, and that demonstrates that eliminating these issues would eliminate suicide, right? Whatever evidence you have would also have to explain why people who don't have to worry about any of those issues still commit suicide without contradicting itself.   Also, I can't think of any company that supports giving people PTSD. Can you?  >...but they don't really care. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"...   >   >...If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.  Do you know what this sounds like? It sounds like the guy who goes around saying that morbidly obese people are just slobs who are completely disinterested in their own health. Clearly, if they wanted to actually lose weight, they wouldn't still be overweight after a year.   It sounds like the guy who goes around saying that poor people are just lazy\/stupid. Clearly, if they wanted to actually improve their socioeconomic condition, they would just improve themselves, work harder, and get a better job.  It even sounds like the guy who goes around saying that suicidal people just don't want help and probably deserve the things that they do to themselves. Why else would they emotionally push away people who try to understand their situation and help them?  &#x200B;  Most of the issues you've raised just boil down to you begging the question. Before you can reasonably claim that opposing Medicare for All means that one must not care about suicide, you have to unequivocally prove that the lack of Medicare for All significantly contributes to the incidence of suicide and that implementing Medicare for All would significantly reduce or outright eliminate the incidence of suicide.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14837.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1emy9i","c_root_id_B":"h1ezt0p","created_at_utc_A":1623421579,"created_at_utc_B":1623427234,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I would say they care more than companies that don\u2019t talk about it.","human_ref_B":">You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide  Unless you genuinely believe that a Medicare for All program would be a net negative on access to care\/quality of care for all of the people concerned.   >You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.\r   \r  Unless you genuinely believe that a higher minimum wage would increase unemployment and that having a low-paying job is better than having no job at all.   >You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.\r   \r  See above. Also, this doesn't even remotely apply to the only company that you've actually named in this post. The average Google employee is making six figures per year.   >You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.\r   \r  Not sure who, exactly, you're blaming this on. Companies that might actually have low wages for workers aren't the kinds of companies that have the ability to hoard housing or influence rent prices.   >You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  Unless you genuinely believe that student loan debt relief would encourage colleges to further raise their already inflated tuition prices or that it would disproportionately benefit higher-income people who don't need their incomes subsidized.  >You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.  So you have evidence that clearly shows the causal relationship between these issues and suicide, and that demonstrates that eliminating these issues would eliminate suicide, right? Whatever evidence you have would also have to explain why people who don't have to worry about any of those issues still commit suicide without contradicting itself.   Also, I can't think of any company that supports giving people PTSD. Can you?  >...but they don't really care. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"...   >   >...If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.  Do you know what this sounds like? It sounds like the guy who goes around saying that morbidly obese people are just slobs who are completely disinterested in their own health. Clearly, if they wanted to actually lose weight, they wouldn't still be overweight after a year.   It sounds like the guy who goes around saying that poor people are just lazy\/stupid. Clearly, if they wanted to actually improve their socioeconomic condition, they would just improve themselves, work harder, and get a better job.  It even sounds like the guy who goes around saying that suicidal people just don't want help and probably deserve the things that they do to themselves. Why else would they emotionally push away people who try to understand their situation and help them?  &#x200B;  Most of the issues you've raised just boil down to you begging the question. Before you can reasonably claim that opposing Medicare for All means that one must not care about suicide, you have to unequivocally prove that the lack of Medicare for All significantly contributes to the incidence of suicide and that implementing Medicare for All would significantly reduce or outright eliminate the incidence of suicide.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5655.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1evwc4","c_root_id_B":"h1f7qcy","created_at_utc_A":1623425532,"created_at_utc_B":1623430660,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019d argue there\u2019s a negligible difference between caring, and \u201cpretending\u201d to care.   Let\u2019s say someone is drowning in a lake, and a company saves their life. The company did it for one of two reasons.   * To virtue signal, and drive up profits by \u201cpretending\u201d to care about saving someone from drowning.   * To genuinely save someone\u2019s life, for no other reason than to be kind.   What\u2019s the actual physical difference between the two? Both cases took the exact same action. Both cases have the exact same end result. And if someone is drowning again in the future, they\u2019re both going to act the exact same way.","human_ref_B":"This whole post can be refuted in one simple swoop. You are not the arbiter of caring, you do not get to decide who cares about what, and the mere fact that you equate your political stances to the value judgement of \u201ccaring\u201d whilst implying those who don\u2019t support your views don\u2019t care is obscene.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5128.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1e5k4b","c_root_id_B":"h1f7qcy","created_at_utc_A":1623412397,"created_at_utc_B":1623430660,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I share your suspicious outlook, but my take is different.   Google isn't against those social programs you mentioned. They want higher minimum wage, but again it's not out of benevolence. They just want to crunch the labor market. Google is the big dog. They want barriers to entry for competitors.  Their employees are highly paid, but the environment is stifling and demeaning to human dignity. See James Damore fired for expressing polite opinion when solicited. Chilling effect. My impression of Google is that it's like working in academia where they have perpetual witch hunts. You bully the people at the bottom of the social totem pole out of existence. Then you do it again, and as you keep doing it, the new normal becomes more and more artificial, more and more tenuous, unstable, and psychologically intolerable. The military funds all kinds of university research into how to keep people in a state of high stress so they are highly suggestible and compliant. I think this is what Google's doing. It's a big uncontrolled experiment to push the limits on working conditions to find the exact equilibrium between suffering and suicide.  If you look at their \"mental wellness booths\" or \"cry closets\" or whatever, those things are Orwellian versions of suicide nets. You could call it virtue signaling, but it's not really a good look. There are very few people who would actually bother trying to cite academic gobbledygook to back them up. We call them Kamala Harris voters. Basically you put people in jail based on lies, and laugh about it. This is the executives at Google getting cocky.  If you're unsure of anything, know this: Google used to be the opposite. When Google was making a name for itself, there were no rules. Employees had hookers and cocaine in the office. None of this fair trade soy burgers. None of this diversity. There are video clips of them joking around like an old boys club. It was a cohesive unit on a mission, not isolated individuals looking for ways to backstab each other. The work reflects it. People want out, if it's not too late.","human_ref_B":"This whole post can be refuted in one simple swoop. You are not the arbiter of caring, you do not get to decide who cares about what, and the mere fact that you equate your political stances to the value judgement of \u201ccaring\u201d whilst implying those who don\u2019t support your views don\u2019t care is obscene.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18263.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1emy9i","c_root_id_B":"h1f7qcy","created_at_utc_A":1623421579,"created_at_utc_B":1623430660,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I would say they care more than companies that don\u2019t talk about it.","human_ref_B":"This whole post can be refuted in one simple swoop. You are not the arbiter of caring, you do not get to decide who cares about what, and the mere fact that you equate your political stances to the value judgement of \u201ccaring\u201d whilst implying those who don\u2019t support your views don\u2019t care is obscene.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9081.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1e5k4b","c_root_id_B":"h1evwc4","created_at_utc_A":1623412397,"created_at_utc_B":1623425532,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I share your suspicious outlook, but my take is different.   Google isn't against those social programs you mentioned. They want higher minimum wage, but again it's not out of benevolence. They just want to crunch the labor market. Google is the big dog. They want barriers to entry for competitors.  Their employees are highly paid, but the environment is stifling and demeaning to human dignity. See James Damore fired for expressing polite opinion when solicited. Chilling effect. My impression of Google is that it's like working in academia where they have perpetual witch hunts. You bully the people at the bottom of the social totem pole out of existence. Then you do it again, and as you keep doing it, the new normal becomes more and more artificial, more and more tenuous, unstable, and psychologically intolerable. The military funds all kinds of university research into how to keep people in a state of high stress so they are highly suggestible and compliant. I think this is what Google's doing. It's a big uncontrolled experiment to push the limits on working conditions to find the exact equilibrium between suffering and suicide.  If you look at their \"mental wellness booths\" or \"cry closets\" or whatever, those things are Orwellian versions of suicide nets. You could call it virtue signaling, but it's not really a good look. There are very few people who would actually bother trying to cite academic gobbledygook to back them up. We call them Kamala Harris voters. Basically you put people in jail based on lies, and laugh about it. This is the executives at Google getting cocky.  If you're unsure of anything, know this: Google used to be the opposite. When Google was making a name for itself, there were no rules. Employees had hookers and cocaine in the office. None of this fair trade soy burgers. None of this diversity. There are video clips of them joking around like an old boys club. It was a cohesive unit on a mission, not isolated individuals looking for ways to backstab each other. The work reflects it. People want out, if it's not too late.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d argue there\u2019s a negligible difference between caring, and \u201cpretending\u201d to care.   Let\u2019s say someone is drowning in a lake, and a company saves their life. The company did it for one of two reasons.   * To virtue signal, and drive up profits by \u201cpretending\u201d to care about saving someone from drowning.   * To genuinely save someone\u2019s life, for no other reason than to be kind.   What\u2019s the actual physical difference between the two? Both cases took the exact same action. Both cases have the exact same end result. And if someone is drowning again in the future, they\u2019re both going to act the exact same way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13135.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"nxaiiu","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Most companies don't really care about suicide, they only care about virtue signaling and keeping cheap labor Companies like Google pretend to care about suicide by linking help call lines, and other employers will pretend to care by offering \"counseling\" but they don't really *care*. In fact, I'd say most people don't care. They only care enough to spew out some platitude about \"we could have never known!\"   If companies and employers and people *really* cared, they would do something about the conditions that lead to suicide.   You can't vote against Medicare for All and pretend to give a shit about suicide   You can't vote against minimum wage increases and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't pay your employees starvation wages and pretend to give a shit about suicide.  You can't hoard housing and raise rent to rates requiring people to spiral into misery and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't vote against student loan relief and pretend to care about suicide.  You can't support every condition that leads to suicide and pretend like you give a shit about suicide.   Companies and employers and people who contribute to the conditions of misery that lead people to fantasising about putting a gun to their head cannot pretend to care about those people. If they cared they would actually do something about those conditions.","c_root_id_A":"h1emy9i","c_root_id_B":"h1evwc4","created_at_utc_A":1623421579,"created_at_utc_B":1623425532,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I would say they care more than companies that don\u2019t talk about it.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d argue there\u2019s a negligible difference between caring, and \u201cpretending\u201d to care.   Let\u2019s say someone is drowning in a lake, and a company saves their life. The company did it for one of two reasons.   * To virtue signal, and drive up profits by \u201cpretending\u201d to care about saving someone from drowning.   * To genuinely save someone\u2019s life, for no other reason than to be kind.   What\u2019s the actual physical difference between the two? Both cases took the exact same action. Both cases have the exact same end result. And if someone is drowning again in the future, they\u2019re both going to act the exact same way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3953.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"7vu8j1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: People with zero tolerance for drug use should feel hypocritical when enjoying art or music created by people who used drugs. I get really annoyed when people are against any talk of drug reform and treat addiction like a criminal offence and then go home and put on a Beatles, Stones or Coltrane record, pick up a book by Stephen King or Dickens and look at a painting by Van Gogh. Not to mention work by actors and intellectuals.Those names don\u2019t even scratch the surface of artists who dabbled in drugs to help with their creativity or just get through life. I know many struggled with addiction and there are many negative effects from drugs on society but we seem to always forget the amazingly positive aspects of drug use throughout history please enlighten me if I am being unfair.","c_root_id_A":"dtv815i","c_root_id_B":"dtv7m32","created_at_utc_A":1517988857,"created_at_utc_B":1517988012,"score_A":13,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"That's like saying pacifists aren't allowed to enjoy peace and *not* living under fascism because of the armies who fought to preserve democracy.","human_ref_B":"Do you have a zero tolerance for murder?   What about theft, rape, or abuse(child, domestic,animal)?   How many forms of media have you enjoyed with the above listed themes? Are you a hypocrite?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":845.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
+{"post_id":"7vu8j1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: People with zero tolerance for drug use should feel hypocritical when enjoying art or music created by people who used drugs. I get really annoyed when people are against any talk of drug reform and treat addiction like a criminal offence and then go home and put on a Beatles, Stones or Coltrane record, pick up a book by Stephen King or Dickens and look at a painting by Van Gogh. Not to mention work by actors and intellectuals.Those names don\u2019t even scratch the surface of artists who dabbled in drugs to help with their creativity or just get through life. I know many struggled with addiction and there are many negative effects from drugs on society but we seem to always forget the amazingly positive aspects of drug use throughout history please enlighten me if I am being unfair.","c_root_id_A":"dtv815i","c_root_id_B":"dtv7ztq","created_at_utc_A":1517988857,"created_at_utc_B":1517988781,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"That's like saying pacifists aren't allowed to enjoy peace and *not* living under fascism because of the armies who fought to preserve democracy.","human_ref_B":"I can enjoy eating a big meal even though I'm on a diet and know that I shouldn't do it.  Having a moral or practical objection to something does not preclude the ability to enjoy it.  Nor should it; doing so would accomplish nothing except massively decreasing the amount of joy in the world.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":76.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"7vu8j1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: People with zero tolerance for drug use should feel hypocritical when enjoying art or music created by people who used drugs. I get really annoyed when people are against any talk of drug reform and treat addiction like a criminal offence and then go home and put on a Beatles, Stones or Coltrane record, pick up a book by Stephen King or Dickens and look at a painting by Van Gogh. Not to mention work by actors and intellectuals.Those names don\u2019t even scratch the surface of artists who dabbled in drugs to help with their creativity or just get through life. I know many struggled with addiction and there are many negative effects from drugs on society but we seem to always forget the amazingly positive aspects of drug use throughout history please enlighten me if I am being unfair.","c_root_id_A":"dtv8sqp","c_root_id_B":"dtv9lgo","created_at_utc_A":1517990524,"created_at_utc_B":1517992350,"score_A":6,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Suicide is pretty common in the art community. Can I enjoy Hemingway if I don't think people should kill themselves?","human_ref_B":"I might agree if with you if you meant admiring \/ supporting the process that results in the creation of the art and music. If we were considering the behaviour and processes that resulted in the product, then we may move into the realms of hypocrisy when admiring the things that were produced by drug users, the resulting opinion would be on the lines of: drug use is okay when it results in a product of that is admirable \/ enjoyable.  However, to the audience, the personal circumstances - including exposure to drugs - of the creator (while they may have largely contributed to the product that the audience enjoy) are not what is significant in this scenario. It makes little sense to criticise the product, unless the product itself has done something wrong. Being inanimate, we cannot judge the art work or music as inherently evil, but if the piece of art was drawn \/ painted using ingredients that were acquired via immoral means i.e slavery, people may associate the product with immoral, evil, and other generally negative connotations.   I think the aforementioned is especially relevant in the modern world. As people we have created astonishing things, buildings, art, institutions, developed products that enhance and improve our lives, educate our people etc, many of these are a result of slavery, war, exploitation, were managed \/ devised \/ led by awful tyrannical leaders and murderers, yet the products remain beneficial and paramount to the preservation and progression of society as we know it. The same with music \/ art forms, they are expressive and continually developing platforms of identity, thought and feeling.  Once the individual \/ audience \/ consumer is knowledgable about the origins of a product, they can interact with it as they please. However, if an individual does enjoy a given product (or hates one for that matter) they should remain mindful as to why they dis-\/like something. They should be considerate of the origins, how something is created, where something came from, and what that particular product means to the creator(s) and how it impacts the audience and wider society. This ofcourse is a difficult request, so to simplify, the request is to be aware of what you do, what you say, and how you interpret the information you receive. Constantly question and query, ask why something is the way it is.  Drug use, abuse, both medically and recreationally, illegally and legally have very different impacts on each person. There is no blanket good or bad, how you are impacted and how you will \/ do act as a result of the ingestion of a given substance is very difficult to predict \/ analyse with great certainty.   People's opinion on drug use therefore should not be static - like most things - as your personal experiences will be contradicted by someone else's next door. It is however, difficult to escape your experience preconceived notions, especially if your life experiences with a given product \/ idea \/ person \/ culture etc are already heavily imbedded within your mind. You may have got to the point of no return, where the negative experiences you have had outweigh the potential positives that may result from taking the leap, and surrounding yourself with the aforementioned entity, again.  To conclude, assuming we keep your OP as specific as it is, I disagree. The producer and the product (while related) are largely separate. You can enjoy a song \/ speech \/ experience produced by a personal of questionable behaviour without supporting their lifestyle.   However, if the question or theory was \"Illicit drugs and their users are inherently bad\" and \/ or \"illicit drugs are completely bad, offering not positives\", but the individual who stated this regularly engaged with products, and in environments that have been shaped by drug users \/ inspired by ideas that resonated from drug use, then I would completely agree with you.  People need to remain open minded and considerate of things that contradict or widely differ from their own world view. This is the general \/ main difficulty the global society is facing. How we choose to interact with each other amidst our differences will determine the quality of life and standard of living of all people in the future. Let's make a conscious effort to be as considerate as we can to the differences \/ similarities in the people that surround us, and also the way in which we inter-\/act within our spheres of influence.  Rant over. Interesting thought though OP.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1826.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"7vu8j1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: People with zero tolerance for drug use should feel hypocritical when enjoying art or music created by people who used drugs. I get really annoyed when people are against any talk of drug reform and treat addiction like a criminal offence and then go home and put on a Beatles, Stones or Coltrane record, pick up a book by Stephen King or Dickens and look at a painting by Van Gogh. Not to mention work by actors and intellectuals.Those names don\u2019t even scratch the surface of artists who dabbled in drugs to help with their creativity or just get through life. I know many struggled with addiction and there are many negative effects from drugs on society but we seem to always forget the amazingly positive aspects of drug use throughout history please enlighten me if I am being unfair.","c_root_id_A":"dtv7m32","c_root_id_B":"dtv9lgo","created_at_utc_A":1517988012,"created_at_utc_B":1517992350,"score_A":4,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Do you have a zero tolerance for murder?   What about theft, rape, or abuse(child, domestic,animal)?   How many forms of media have you enjoyed with the above listed themes? Are you a hypocrite?","human_ref_B":"I might agree if with you if you meant admiring \/ supporting the process that results in the creation of the art and music. If we were considering the behaviour and processes that resulted in the product, then we may move into the realms of hypocrisy when admiring the things that were produced by drug users, the resulting opinion would be on the lines of: drug use is okay when it results in a product of that is admirable \/ enjoyable.  However, to the audience, the personal circumstances - including exposure to drugs - of the creator (while they may have largely contributed to the product that the audience enjoy) are not what is significant in this scenario. It makes little sense to criticise the product, unless the product itself has done something wrong. Being inanimate, we cannot judge the art work or music as inherently evil, but if the piece of art was drawn \/ painted using ingredients that were acquired via immoral means i.e slavery, people may associate the product with immoral, evil, and other generally negative connotations.   I think the aforementioned is especially relevant in the modern world. As people we have created astonishing things, buildings, art, institutions, developed products that enhance and improve our lives, educate our people etc, many of these are a result of slavery, war, exploitation, were managed \/ devised \/ led by awful tyrannical leaders and murderers, yet the products remain beneficial and paramount to the preservation and progression of society as we know it. The same with music \/ art forms, they are expressive and continually developing platforms of identity, thought and feeling.  Once the individual \/ audience \/ consumer is knowledgable about the origins of a product, they can interact with it as they please. However, if an individual does enjoy a given product (or hates one for that matter) they should remain mindful as to why they dis-\/like something. They should be considerate of the origins, how something is created, where something came from, and what that particular product means to the creator(s) and how it impacts the audience and wider society. This ofcourse is a difficult request, so to simplify, the request is to be aware of what you do, what you say, and how you interpret the information you receive. Constantly question and query, ask why something is the way it is.  Drug use, abuse, both medically and recreationally, illegally and legally have very different impacts on each person. There is no blanket good or bad, how you are impacted and how you will \/ do act as a result of the ingestion of a given substance is very difficult to predict \/ analyse with great certainty.   People's opinion on drug use therefore should not be static - like most things - as your personal experiences will be contradicted by someone else's next door. It is however, difficult to escape your experience preconceived notions, especially if your life experiences with a given product \/ idea \/ person \/ culture etc are already heavily imbedded within your mind. You may have got to the point of no return, where the negative experiences you have had outweigh the potential positives that may result from taking the leap, and surrounding yourself with the aforementioned entity, again.  To conclude, assuming we keep your OP as specific as it is, I disagree. The producer and the product (while related) are largely separate. You can enjoy a song \/ speech \/ experience produced by a personal of questionable behaviour without supporting their lifestyle.   However, if the question or theory was \"Illicit drugs and their users are inherently bad\" and \/ or \"illicit drugs are completely bad, offering not positives\", but the individual who stated this regularly engaged with products, and in environments that have been shaped by drug users \/ inspired by ideas that resonated from drug use, then I would completely agree with you.  People need to remain open minded and considerate of things that contradict or widely differ from their own world view. This is the general \/ main difficulty the global society is facing. How we choose to interact with each other amidst our differences will determine the quality of life and standard of living of all people in the future. Let's make a conscious effort to be as considerate as we can to the differences \/ similarities in the people that surround us, and also the way in which we inter-\/act within our spheres of influence.  Rant over. Interesting thought though OP.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4338.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
+{"post_id":"7vu8j1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: People with zero tolerance for drug use should feel hypocritical when enjoying art or music created by people who used drugs. I get really annoyed when people are against any talk of drug reform and treat addiction like a criminal offence and then go home and put on a Beatles, Stones or Coltrane record, pick up a book by Stephen King or Dickens and look at a painting by Van Gogh. Not to mention work by actors and intellectuals.Those names don\u2019t even scratch the surface of artists who dabbled in drugs to help with their creativity or just get through life. I know many struggled with addiction and there are many negative effects from drugs on society but we seem to always forget the amazingly positive aspects of drug use throughout history please enlighten me if I am being unfair.","c_root_id_A":"dtv7ztq","c_root_id_B":"dtv9lgo","created_at_utc_A":1517988781,"created_at_utc_B":1517992350,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I can enjoy eating a big meal even though I'm on a diet and know that I shouldn't do it.  Having a moral or practical objection to something does not preclude the ability to enjoy it.  Nor should it; doing so would accomplish nothing except massively decreasing the amount of joy in the world.","human_ref_B":"I might agree if with you if you meant admiring \/ supporting the process that results in the creation of the art and music. If we were considering the behaviour and processes that resulted in the product, then we may move into the realms of hypocrisy when admiring the things that were produced by drug users, the resulting opinion would be on the lines of: drug use is okay when it results in a product of that is admirable \/ enjoyable.  However, to the audience, the personal circumstances - including exposure to drugs - of the creator (while they may have largely contributed to the product that the audience enjoy) are not what is significant in this scenario. It makes little sense to criticise the product, unless the product itself has done something wrong. Being inanimate, we cannot judge the art work or music as inherently evil, but if the piece of art was drawn \/ painted using ingredients that were acquired via immoral means i.e slavery, people may associate the product with immoral, evil, and other generally negative connotations.   I think the aforementioned is especially relevant in the modern world. As people we have created astonishing things, buildings, art, institutions, developed products that enhance and improve our lives, educate our people etc, many of these are a result of slavery, war, exploitation, were managed \/ devised \/ led by awful tyrannical leaders and murderers, yet the products remain beneficial and paramount to the preservation and progression of society as we know it. The same with music \/ art forms, they are expressive and continually developing platforms of identity, thought and feeling.  Once the individual \/ audience \/ consumer is knowledgable about the origins of a product, they can interact with it as they please. However, if an individual does enjoy a given product (or hates one for that matter) they should remain mindful as to why they dis-\/like something. They should be considerate of the origins, how something is created, where something came from, and what that particular product means to the creator(s) and how it impacts the audience and wider society. This ofcourse is a difficult request, so to simplify, the request is to be aware of what you do, what you say, and how you interpret the information you receive. Constantly question and query, ask why something is the way it is.  Drug use, abuse, both medically and recreationally, illegally and legally have very different impacts on each person. There is no blanket good or bad, how you are impacted and how you will \/ do act as a result of the ingestion of a given substance is very difficult to predict \/ analyse with great certainty.   People's opinion on drug use therefore should not be static - like most things - as your personal experiences will be contradicted by someone else's next door. It is however, difficult to escape your experience preconceived notions, especially if your life experiences with a given product \/ idea \/ person \/ culture etc are already heavily imbedded within your mind. You may have got to the point of no return, where the negative experiences you have had outweigh the potential positives that may result from taking the leap, and surrounding yourself with the aforementioned entity, again.  To conclude, assuming we keep your OP as specific as it is, I disagree. The producer and the product (while related) are largely separate. You can enjoy a song \/ speech \/ experience produced by a personal of questionable behaviour without supporting their lifestyle.   However, if the question or theory was \"Illicit drugs and their users are inherently bad\" and \/ or \"illicit drugs are completely bad, offering not positives\", but the individual who stated this regularly engaged with products, and in environments that have been shaped by drug users \/ inspired by ideas that resonated from drug use, then I would completely agree with you.  People need to remain open minded and considerate of things that contradict or widely differ from their own world view. This is the general \/ main difficulty the global society is facing. How we choose to interact with each other amidst our differences will determine the quality of life and standard of living of all people in the future. Let's make a conscious effort to be as considerate as we can to the differences \/ similarities in the people that surround us, and also the way in which we inter-\/act within our spheres of influence.  Rant over. Interesting thought though OP.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3569.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
+{"post_id":"7vu8j1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: People with zero tolerance for drug use should feel hypocritical when enjoying art or music created by people who used drugs. I get really annoyed when people are against any talk of drug reform and treat addiction like a criminal offence and then go home and put on a Beatles, Stones or Coltrane record, pick up a book by Stephen King or Dickens and look at a painting by Van Gogh. Not to mention work by actors and intellectuals.Those names don\u2019t even scratch the surface of artists who dabbled in drugs to help with their creativity or just get through life. I know many struggled with addiction and there are many negative effects from drugs on society but we seem to always forget the amazingly positive aspects of drug use throughout history please enlighten me if I am being unfair.","c_root_id_A":"dtv7m32","c_root_id_B":"dtv8sqp","created_at_utc_A":1517988012,"created_at_utc_B":1517990524,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Do you have a zero tolerance for murder?   What about theft, rape, or abuse(child, domestic,animal)?   How many forms of media have you enjoyed with the above listed themes? Are you a hypocrite?","human_ref_B":"Suicide is pretty common in the art community. Can I enjoy Hemingway if I don't think people should kill themselves?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2512.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"7vu8j1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: People with zero tolerance for drug use should feel hypocritical when enjoying art or music created by people who used drugs. I get really annoyed when people are against any talk of drug reform and treat addiction like a criminal offence and then go home and put on a Beatles, Stones or Coltrane record, pick up a book by Stephen King or Dickens and look at a painting by Van Gogh. Not to mention work by actors and intellectuals.Those names don\u2019t even scratch the surface of artists who dabbled in drugs to help with their creativity or just get through life. I know many struggled with addiction and there are many negative effects from drugs on society but we seem to always forget the amazingly positive aspects of drug use throughout history please enlighten me if I am being unfair.","c_root_id_A":"dtv8sqp","c_root_id_B":"dtv7ztq","created_at_utc_A":1517990524,"created_at_utc_B":1517988781,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Suicide is pretty common in the art community. Can I enjoy Hemingway if I don't think people should kill themselves?","human_ref_B":"I can enjoy eating a big meal even though I'm on a diet and know that I shouldn't do it.  Having a moral or practical objection to something does not preclude the ability to enjoy it.  Nor should it; doing so would accomplish nothing except massively decreasing the amount of joy in the world.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1743.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"7vu8j1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: People with zero tolerance for drug use should feel hypocritical when enjoying art or music created by people who used drugs. I get really annoyed when people are against any talk of drug reform and treat addiction like a criminal offence and then go home and put on a Beatles, Stones or Coltrane record, pick up a book by Stephen King or Dickens and look at a painting by Van Gogh. Not to mention work by actors and intellectuals.Those names don\u2019t even scratch the surface of artists who dabbled in drugs to help with their creativity or just get through life. I know many struggled with addiction and there are many negative effects from drugs on society but we seem to always forget the amazingly positive aspects of drug use throughout history please enlighten me if I am being unfair.","c_root_id_A":"dtvdmms","c_root_id_B":"dtv7ztq","created_at_utc_A":1518002285,"created_at_utc_B":1517988781,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> amazingly positive aspects of drug use  How do you conclusively prove that a specific work is a product of drug use?","human_ref_B":"I can enjoy eating a big meal even though I'm on a diet and know that I shouldn't do it.  Having a moral or practical objection to something does not preclude the ability to enjoy it.  Nor should it; doing so would accomplish nothing except massively decreasing the amount of joy in the world.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13504.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"7vu8j1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: People with zero tolerance for drug use should feel hypocritical when enjoying art or music created by people who used drugs. I get really annoyed when people are against any talk of drug reform and treat addiction like a criminal offence and then go home and put on a Beatles, Stones or Coltrane record, pick up a book by Stephen King or Dickens and look at a painting by Van Gogh. Not to mention work by actors and intellectuals.Those names don\u2019t even scratch the surface of artists who dabbled in drugs to help with their creativity or just get through life. I know many struggled with addiction and there are many negative effects from drugs on society but we seem to always forget the amazingly positive aspects of drug use throughout history please enlighten me if I am being unfair.","c_root_id_A":"dtv7ztq","c_root_id_B":"dtvf3b3","created_at_utc_A":1517988781,"created_at_utc_B":1518005360,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I can enjoy eating a big meal even though I'm on a diet and know that I shouldn't do it.  Having a moral or practical objection to something does not preclude the ability to enjoy it.  Nor should it; doing so would accomplish nothing except massively decreasing the amount of joy in the world.","human_ref_B":"So are you saying that people who don't want to be hypocritical, and do enjoy art or music by people who used drugs, ought to be pro-drug reform because drugs contributed to these artists' works in a number of cases? Some of these people also committed sexual harassment as we're now finding out, yet you probably don't think we should be more lenient (in cases where there's reason to believe the victims)?  The problem is also that we don't know what would have happened if drugs had never entered into the picture. We can't say that the Beatles or the Stones would not have produced equivalently great songs if they hadn't had access to drugs.  BTW: while I've never taken any drugs, I am personally pro legalization, and against criminalization. I just don't think it's a convincing argument.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16579.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"7vu8j1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: People with zero tolerance for drug use should feel hypocritical when enjoying art or music created by people who used drugs. I get really annoyed when people are against any talk of drug reform and treat addiction like a criminal offence and then go home and put on a Beatles, Stones or Coltrane record, pick up a book by Stephen King or Dickens and look at a painting by Van Gogh. Not to mention work by actors and intellectuals.Those names don\u2019t even scratch the surface of artists who dabbled in drugs to help with their creativity or just get through life. I know many struggled with addiction and there are many negative effects from drugs on society but we seem to always forget the amazingly positive aspects of drug use throughout history please enlighten me if I am being unfair.","c_root_id_A":"dtv7ztq","c_root_id_B":"dtw0kef","created_at_utc_A":1517988781,"created_at_utc_B":1518028687,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I can enjoy eating a big meal even though I'm on a diet and know that I shouldn't do it.  Having a moral or practical objection to something does not preclude the ability to enjoy it.  Nor should it; doing so would accomplish nothing except massively decreasing the amount of joy in the world.","human_ref_B":"It seems that you are assuming that artists' art is only good because of the drugs.   If I were staunchly anti-drug, would it be hypocritical of me to think \"Starry Night is amazing. Just imagine what else Van Gogh could have accomplished if he wasn't always drinking absinthe\"?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":39906.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"7vu8j1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: People with zero tolerance for drug use should feel hypocritical when enjoying art or music created by people who used drugs. I get really annoyed when people are against any talk of drug reform and treat addiction like a criminal offence and then go home and put on a Beatles, Stones or Coltrane record, pick up a book by Stephen King or Dickens and look at a painting by Van Gogh. Not to mention work by actors and intellectuals.Those names don\u2019t even scratch the surface of artists who dabbled in drugs to help with their creativity or just get through life. I know many struggled with addiction and there are many negative effects from drugs on society but we seem to always forget the amazingly positive aspects of drug use throughout history please enlighten me if I am being unfair.","c_root_id_A":"dtw0kef","c_root_id_B":"dtvj9qv","created_at_utc_A":1518028687,"created_at_utc_B":1518011878,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It seems that you are assuming that artists' art is only good because of the drugs.   If I were staunchly anti-drug, would it be hypocritical of me to think \"Starry Night is amazing. Just imagine what else Van Gogh could have accomplished if he wasn't always drinking absinthe\"?","human_ref_B":"what if their view is that the drugs only hindered their music? like the white album could have been twice as good without the lsd.  or if you're talking about a strict moral failing regarding recreational drug use and quarantining that away, isn't that just a matter of ignorance? according to their zero tol policy, are they looking up every artist when their song comes on the radio to make sure they don't have any arrests for cocaine possession?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16809.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"2ia71k","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Change my view thatLearning how to do your taxes, budgeting and finance, emergency medical training, and leadership skills should be required to be taught in high schools. I probably can solve algebraic equations, recite parts of the periodic table, and write a decent essay, but what I don\u2019t have are the skills to be successful after I graduate from college (If I am lucky enough to do so). I enjoy that high school taught me how to write well, and that skill will guide me all throughout my life. However, I think it is important for high schools to balance their curriculum with more practical skills than theoretical. I know some basic information on taxes through my government class, however, I have not a clue how to balance a checkbook or fill out an i-9 form. You may think I am ignorant: and I know I shouldn\u2019t spend more money than I have, but other than that I am seemingly unequipped to tackle the duties and hardships of financial life after University. My school also never taught me protocol if someone chokes, or if someone is having a heart attack. Obviously I won\u2019t be in situations where someone is having a heart attack everyday, but I really think knowing how to save a human life is more important than solving a geometric proof.   _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cl09llg","c_root_id_B":"cl0aa4e","created_at_utc_A":1412439777,"created_at_utc_B":1412441430,"score_A":57,"score_B":265,"human_ref_A":"Unless you are very young, chances are the taxing system has changed quite a bit since you were in school. The same will happen to the next generation. The system they will use will be very different than what we have today - probably some sort of automated online thing, where you need to click a few buttons to get it done. It makes little sense to teach something that will be obsolete in a few years. It's better to give general knowledge, so that people are smarter and can handle any system, rather than teaching a very specific skill that will become useless.  It is even worse about finance, because people have very different ideas about what is \"good\" and what is \"bad\" and there are no simple rules one can follow. The same financial advice (like \"take a loan if possible\") can have very positive or very negative results, or anywhere in between. It really depends on the situation and there is no simple rule you can follow.","human_ref_B":"The idea of most education, certainly through high school, and to some degree through college as well is to teach you *how* to think.  My school didn't teach me how do to a web search because there wasn't a web back then.  It didn't teach about digital rights management, or Ebola, cyber safety, or electronic bill pay- because none of them existed.  But I understand all of those now - because I learned to research, to understand news articles, master new skills.  I had enough biology that I can follow the Ebola transmission arguments.    There are many resources for all of the skills you listed.  Are you able to master them if you so desire?  If so, then your schooling has been effective.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1653.0,"score_ratio":4.649122807}
+{"post_id":"2ia71k","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Change my view thatLearning how to do your taxes, budgeting and finance, emergency medical training, and leadership skills should be required to be taught in high schools. I probably can solve algebraic equations, recite parts of the periodic table, and write a decent essay, but what I don\u2019t have are the skills to be successful after I graduate from college (If I am lucky enough to do so). I enjoy that high school taught me how to write well, and that skill will guide me all throughout my life. However, I think it is important for high schools to balance their curriculum with more practical skills than theoretical. I know some basic information on taxes through my government class, however, I have not a clue how to balance a checkbook or fill out an i-9 form. You may think I am ignorant: and I know I shouldn\u2019t spend more money than I have, but other than that I am seemingly unequipped to tackle the duties and hardships of financial life after University. My school also never taught me protocol if someone chokes, or if someone is having a heart attack. Obviously I won\u2019t be in situations where someone is having a heart attack everyday, but I really think knowing how to save a human life is more important than solving a geometric proof.   _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cl0bioi","c_root_id_B":"cl0bhbn","created_at_utc_A":1412444303,"created_at_utc_B":1412444214,"score_A":48,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"The first three are practical (even though learning algebra is perfectly practical; everyone forgets it's about learning to think, rather than learning algebra itself). But teaching \"leadership?\" Schools are the last thing you want teaching leadership. Nobody knows how to do anything other than buzzwords. The only way to learn leadership is to *do* it, and I can't see schools being willing to have classtime devoted to poor leaders testing things out.","human_ref_B":"Schools are there to teach you basic educational skills that are a key to you receiving a further education.  Learning to read an i-9 is helpful, but only for reading an i-9. Learning to do CPR is useful, but only for giving CPR. Meanwhile learning to read, write, and manipulate numbers, as well as a basic skeleton of scientific, historical, and cultural knowledge, gives you the foundation for learning anything you want to.  If you want to learn to tie a tie, track your finances, perform CPR, etc. you can find instructions online. There are *thousands* of terminal lifeskills like this, and schools can't be responsible for teaching them all. Parents need to teach some; young adults need to pick up others on their own, or pay for lessons; and in some cases, people will simply decide they need to soldier on without it, because some skills aren't worth the cost of acquiring them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":89.0,"score_ratio":4.8}
+{"post_id":"2ia71k","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Change my view thatLearning how to do your taxes, budgeting and finance, emergency medical training, and leadership skills should be required to be taught in high schools. I probably can solve algebraic equations, recite parts of the periodic table, and write a decent essay, but what I don\u2019t have are the skills to be successful after I graduate from college (If I am lucky enough to do so). I enjoy that high school taught me how to write well, and that skill will guide me all throughout my life. However, I think it is important for high schools to balance their curriculum with more practical skills than theoretical. I know some basic information on taxes through my government class, however, I have not a clue how to balance a checkbook or fill out an i-9 form. You may think I am ignorant: and I know I shouldn\u2019t spend more money than I have, but other than that I am seemingly unequipped to tackle the duties and hardships of financial life after University. My school also never taught me protocol if someone chokes, or if someone is having a heart attack. Obviously I won\u2019t be in situations where someone is having a heart attack everyday, but I really think knowing how to save a human life is more important than solving a geometric proof.   _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cl0bioi","c_root_id_B":"cl0aqvx","created_at_utc_A":1412444303,"created_at_utc_B":1412442532,"score_A":48,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The first three are practical (even though learning algebra is perfectly practical; everyone forgets it's about learning to think, rather than learning algebra itself). But teaching \"leadership?\" Schools are the last thing you want teaching leadership. Nobody knows how to do anything other than buzzwords. The only way to learn leadership is to *do* it, and I can't see schools being willing to have classtime devoted to poor leaders testing things out.","human_ref_B":"Medical advice changes all the time.  e.g. Suggested methods of CPR http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Cardiopulmonary_resuscitation#History  If we had kept on teaching basic stuff, you would have been taught sewing and baking a cake only 20 years ago.  It was useful before, do you think that its useful now?  You would have complained that \"they taught us useless stuff in high school\".  And all this stuff you can learn on your own.  Why do you need to spend valuable high school time on this?  (More importantly if you find it so important, why don't you learn it?  If you aren't, do you really find it important enough to be taught in high school?)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1771.0,"score_ratio":16.0}
+{"post_id":"2ia71k","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Change my view thatLearning how to do your taxes, budgeting and finance, emergency medical training, and leadership skills should be required to be taught in high schools. I probably can solve algebraic equations, recite parts of the periodic table, and write a decent essay, but what I don\u2019t have are the skills to be successful after I graduate from college (If I am lucky enough to do so). I enjoy that high school taught me how to write well, and that skill will guide me all throughout my life. However, I think it is important for high schools to balance their curriculum with more practical skills than theoretical. I know some basic information on taxes through my government class, however, I have not a clue how to balance a checkbook or fill out an i-9 form. You may think I am ignorant: and I know I shouldn\u2019t spend more money than I have, but other than that I am seemingly unequipped to tackle the duties and hardships of financial life after University. My school also never taught me protocol if someone chokes, or if someone is having a heart attack. Obviously I won\u2019t be in situations where someone is having a heart attack everyday, but I really think knowing how to save a human life is more important than solving a geometric proof.   _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cl0bhbn","c_root_id_B":"cl0aqvx","created_at_utc_A":1412444214,"created_at_utc_B":1412442532,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Schools are there to teach you basic educational skills that are a key to you receiving a further education.  Learning to read an i-9 is helpful, but only for reading an i-9. Learning to do CPR is useful, but only for giving CPR. Meanwhile learning to read, write, and manipulate numbers, as well as a basic skeleton of scientific, historical, and cultural knowledge, gives you the foundation for learning anything you want to.  If you want to learn to tie a tie, track your finances, perform CPR, etc. you can find instructions online. There are *thousands* of terminal lifeskills like this, and schools can't be responsible for teaching them all. Parents need to teach some; young adults need to pick up others on their own, or pay for lessons; and in some cases, people will simply decide they need to soldier on without it, because some skills aren't worth the cost of acquiring them.","human_ref_B":"Medical advice changes all the time.  e.g. Suggested methods of CPR http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Cardiopulmonary_resuscitation#History  If we had kept on teaching basic stuff, you would have been taught sewing and baking a cake only 20 years ago.  It was useful before, do you think that its useful now?  You would have complained that \"they taught us useless stuff in high school\".  And all this stuff you can learn on your own.  Why do you need to spend valuable high school time on this?  (More importantly if you find it so important, why don't you learn it?  If you aren't, do you really find it important enough to be taught in high school?)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1682.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"2ia71k","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Change my view thatLearning how to do your taxes, budgeting and finance, emergency medical training, and leadership skills should be required to be taught in high schools. I probably can solve algebraic equations, recite parts of the periodic table, and write a decent essay, but what I don\u2019t have are the skills to be successful after I graduate from college (If I am lucky enough to do so). I enjoy that high school taught me how to write well, and that skill will guide me all throughout my life. However, I think it is important for high schools to balance their curriculum with more practical skills than theoretical. I know some basic information on taxes through my government class, however, I have not a clue how to balance a checkbook or fill out an i-9 form. You may think I am ignorant: and I know I shouldn\u2019t spend more money than I have, but other than that I am seemingly unequipped to tackle the duties and hardships of financial life after University. My school also never taught me protocol if someone chokes, or if someone is having a heart attack. Obviously I won\u2019t be in situations where someone is having a heart attack everyday, but I really think knowing how to save a human life is more important than solving a geometric proof.   _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cl0aqvx","c_root_id_B":"cl0bm0v","created_at_utc_A":1412442532,"created_at_utc_B":1412444519,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Medical advice changes all the time.  e.g. Suggested methods of CPR http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Cardiopulmonary_resuscitation#History  If we had kept on teaching basic stuff, you would have been taught sewing and baking a cake only 20 years ago.  It was useful before, do you think that its useful now?  You would have complained that \"they taught us useless stuff in high school\".  And all this stuff you can learn on your own.  Why do you need to spend valuable high school time on this?  (More importantly if you find it so important, why don't you learn it?  If you aren't, do you really find it important enough to be taught in high school?)","human_ref_B":"Let's start with the goals of the two different subject areas.   **Education** - The name might be a misnomer. K-12 education serves a few different purposes, but I'm not sure any of them are to prepare you for life. The first is to be a baby sitter. Are you really learning life lessons in first grade or kindergarten? No. You're in a safe place so that parents can go work during the day.   Another goal is socialization. K-12 education is meant to teach children to get along with strangers, respect authority figures, and learn to sit quietly and follow direction. This is really preparation for the work force where adults will need to sit quietly, follow directions, and get along with strangers.   The final goal is teaching children how to learn. For those that want to go on to higher education, they'll need to understand standardized tests and lecture. I don't recall a single thing learned in K-12, but I have definitely built off of those skills in college.   **Taxes, budgeting, emergency medical training** - Taxes and budgeting would be very difficult to teach to kids who have no idea what the value of a dollar is. Keep in mind, most kids in K-12 education have *never* worked a day in their lives. Their conception of money isn't quite matured until they work an 8 hour shift.   In a similar vein, I sincerely doubt that I would recall a single thing from my 12th grade taxes class and be able to apply it as a 26 year old doing my taxes for the first time. For most, their parents will claim them as a dependent until they're 26. That could be a *decade* after having taken the class.  Let's also keep in mind the stakes. If a teacher incorrectly describes the renaissance, no big deal. If a teacher incorrectly describes the method for saving a life? That could literally kill someone. Liability issues are springing to the foreground of my thoughts.   **Conclusion** - The goals of education aren't to prepare children for life. They're to keep them docile and behaved while parents work and\/or to prepare them for higher education.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1987.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"2ia71k","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Change my view thatLearning how to do your taxes, budgeting and finance, emergency medical training, and leadership skills should be required to be taught in high schools. I probably can solve algebraic equations, recite parts of the periodic table, and write a decent essay, but what I don\u2019t have are the skills to be successful after I graduate from college (If I am lucky enough to do so). I enjoy that high school taught me how to write well, and that skill will guide me all throughout my life. However, I think it is important for high schools to balance their curriculum with more practical skills than theoretical. I know some basic information on taxes through my government class, however, I have not a clue how to balance a checkbook or fill out an i-9 form. You may think I am ignorant: and I know I shouldn\u2019t spend more money than I have, but other than that I am seemingly unequipped to tackle the duties and hardships of financial life after University. My school also never taught me protocol if someone chokes, or if someone is having a heart attack. Obviously I won\u2019t be in situations where someone is having a heart attack everyday, but I really think knowing how to save a human life is more important than solving a geometric proof.   _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cl0aqvx","c_root_id_B":"cl0c92i","created_at_utc_A":1412442532,"created_at_utc_B":1412445970,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Medical advice changes all the time.  e.g. Suggested methods of CPR http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Cardiopulmonary_resuscitation#History  If we had kept on teaching basic stuff, you would have been taught sewing and baking a cake only 20 years ago.  It was useful before, do you think that its useful now?  You would have complained that \"they taught us useless stuff in high school\".  And all this stuff you can learn on your own.  Why do you need to spend valuable high school time on this?  (More importantly if you find it so important, why don't you learn it?  If you aren't, do you really find it important enough to be taught in high school?)","human_ref_B":"IF you throw in learning taxes, emergency medical training, and leadership skills, where do you stop with what people should be taught in schools? Survival skills? Self defense? Mandatory shop class? Basic mechanics?   As u\/garnteller said, school teaches you how to think so that you can seek out the information you want.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3438.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grknz9s","c_root_id_B":"grkmuxi","created_at_utc_A":1616230989,"created_at_utc_B":1616229733,"score_A":25,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"No one's even trying to change your view, isn't that against the rules?  How about this: Animr characters aren't human. You may claim they posess thr characteristics of prebubescant children, but actually the posess the characteristics of aliens. Head and eyes much bigger than any human child, nose and mouth much smaller, legs too long, feet too small and depending on style, hands too big or too small.  So while the Japanese might call that pedophile, because the characters in universe are children, they look nothing like actual human children.","human_ref_B":"Would you consider a man who has no attraction towards other men but finds an extremely stylised drawing of a man hot \"gay for drawings\"? This is not a gotcha, more of a probe. If your answer is \"yes,\" then as wack as I find your view, it's internally consistent and nothing but correction en masse will convince you that that's not how the term works. Being only one man, nothing I alone can do is en masse so I won't be getting any deltas. If your answer is \"no\" then I've identified an inconsistency in your position which must be reconciled.  Similarly, would you consider someone who got their rocks off to s\/m stuff a masochist even if they'd never engage in it in real life? Their claim would be \"I'm not aroused by X, I can be aroused by fictitious depictions of X\". In this case though, the X would be \"pain\". The view you've put forward would have those people labelled \"masochists for videos\" or some such.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1256.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grl6fah","c_root_id_B":"grkpxj0","created_at_utc_A":1616247532,"created_at_utc_B":1616233142,"score_A":22,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"if you're aroused by animated characters and not be real children you're not a pedophile anymore than a furry is into bestiality.  The brain - oddly enough - knows that something is an animated character drawing and if that is the subject of the arousal and a person doesn't experience that arousal from actual children...then...well....not a pedophile.    There are certainly pedoophiles who like loli.  However, there are people who like the pretend aspect of a lot of things and if you remove the pretend the arousal does not exist.  A whole lot of fetishism works like this.  Being turned on by a rape fantasy doesn't mean you want rape, for example.  Pretend is _part of_ it.    The term \"pedophile of a drawing\" is non-sensical since a drawing is not pre-pubescent child.  It's a drawing.  For another angle, there are a lot of people who experience zero sexual arousal from adult animation.  Are these people somehow not straight\/gay because these drawings do NOT turn them on?","human_ref_B":">  First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence.   So anyone that likes Belle Delphines nsfw stuff is a pedophile?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14390.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grl6fah","c_root_id_B":"grkrc76","created_at_utc_A":1616247532,"created_at_utc_B":1616234724,"score_A":22,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"if you're aroused by animated characters and not be real children you're not a pedophile anymore than a furry is into bestiality.  The brain - oddly enough - knows that something is an animated character drawing and if that is the subject of the arousal and a person doesn't experience that arousal from actual children...then...well....not a pedophile.    There are certainly pedoophiles who like loli.  However, there are people who like the pretend aspect of a lot of things and if you remove the pretend the arousal does not exist.  A whole lot of fetishism works like this.  Being turned on by a rape fantasy doesn't mean you want rape, for example.  Pretend is _part of_ it.    The term \"pedophile of a drawing\" is non-sensical since a drawing is not pre-pubescent child.  It's a drawing.  For another angle, there are a lot of people who experience zero sexual arousal from adult animation.  Are these people somehow not straight\/gay because these drawings do NOT turn them on?","human_ref_B":"> Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is.   Why is it bad?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12808.0,"score_ratio":1.4666666667}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grkvsxw","c_root_id_B":"grl6fah","created_at_utc_A":1616239370,"created_at_utc_B":1616247532,"score_A":9,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Lolicon being equated to human pedophilia is unwarranted, and is the product of pedophilia hysteria, and stigmatization.  Being a \"pedophile of a drawing\" is probably accurate, but you're mistaken to assume it has meaningful correlations to pedophilia of human children. Not only is a cartoon significantly different from an actual human being, but it is not even a realistic cartoon, it is done in the \"moe\" art style, that is focused on a surreal essence of cuteness. Older anime have some children that look like cartoon children, the same cannot be said for moe, the face is inhuman, with gigantic eyes, and small mouths\/noses. This would go from adorably cute to nightmare inducing if you were to assemble a human being that is realistically accurate to a moe child.  Plus, while the body of said drawing is similar in stature to a child, it also can vary in important ways, such as wider hips, meatier thighs, and breast growth, all things that would not be present in a prepubescent human child. So, you end up with a cartoon that is not realistically human, and that has secondary sex characteristics that would be improbable for their young age\/relative size. Combine this with the fact that it is fictional, no child is being harmed, and no crime is taking place, and you have a radically different concept than pedophilia of human children or human child porn, and child sexual abuse.  You also need to consider the nature of sexual attraction to anime itself, it is not directly comparable to a similarly looking human, the faces are often done in the same moe style, so even an adult woman has a bizarrely cute\/young looking face that resembles a 3-5 yr old human child more so than a physically mature, adult female. The only interesting aspect of lolicon is that it is a small body, and size fetishes are completely normal when it comes to human beings, there's always demand for tiny pornstars that look like girls in their mid teens. You can call that pedophilic, but I think it's a slippery slope to declare pedophilic tendencies towards a fully grown adult woman.  A petite woman with very small breasts shouldn't be compared to a child simply because she is less physically developed. If anything, we need to come to the conclusion that breasts are giant sacks of fat, and large ones shouldn't be the pinnacle of femininity or womanhood. A woman that is close to a flat chest is not any less of a woman, and the idea that a female body can't be appreciated by a heterosexual male unless it is closer to the Instagram model ideal of beauty is both shortsighted, and insulting to those women. Male heterosexual attraction should be just as legitimate towards women that are petite\/cute, in a more youthful way, as ones that are outright voluptuous\/sexy, in a more seductive way.  Now, I have established that someone with a normal heterosexual attraction can find smaller, less developed female bodies sexually appealing, and I have not even delved into fetishism. If you account for fetishism, then it goes without question that you can be aroused by a fictional, non-realistic cartoon child in a sex act, and you could have even less predisposition towards petite\/less physically developed women than I already discussed. That's simply because fetishism is sexual arousal to the bizarre or strange, and it is our fear\/anxiety that fuel our sexual arousal, not necessarily any kind of genuine sexual interest.  You can find an erotic photoshoot of 10 yr old Brooke Shields online, she is a completely undeveloped child, with no visible breast growth. I found this real picture of a human being far more disturbing than any fictional loli rape hentai I have ever stumbled across in my rabbit hole of porn fetishes. The fictional element allows us to explore taboo ideas in ways that simply can't exist, I don't have to care about the rape of a fictional anime child, but I can't begin to imagine viewing a human child in the same sexual capacity, destroying their innocence for something as mundane as sexual pleasure is both disgustingly vile, and absolutely senseless.","human_ref_B":"if you're aroused by animated characters and not be real children you're not a pedophile anymore than a furry is into bestiality.  The brain - oddly enough - knows that something is an animated character drawing and if that is the subject of the arousal and a person doesn't experience that arousal from actual children...then...well....not a pedophile.    There are certainly pedoophiles who like loli.  However, there are people who like the pretend aspect of a lot of things and if you remove the pretend the arousal does not exist.  A whole lot of fetishism works like this.  Being turned on by a rape fantasy doesn't mean you want rape, for example.  Pretend is _part of_ it.    The term \"pedophile of a drawing\" is non-sensical since a drawing is not pre-pubescent child.  It's a drawing.  For another angle, there are a lot of people who experience zero sexual arousal from adult animation.  Are these people somehow not straight\/gay because these drawings do NOT turn them on?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8162.0,"score_ratio":2.4444444444}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grl6fah","c_root_id_B":"grl6679","created_at_utc_A":1616247532,"created_at_utc_B":1616247369,"score_A":22,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"if you're aroused by animated characters and not be real children you're not a pedophile anymore than a furry is into bestiality.  The brain - oddly enough - knows that something is an animated character drawing and if that is the subject of the arousal and a person doesn't experience that arousal from actual children...then...well....not a pedophile.    There are certainly pedoophiles who like loli.  However, there are people who like the pretend aspect of a lot of things and if you remove the pretend the arousal does not exist.  A whole lot of fetishism works like this.  Being turned on by a rape fantasy doesn't mean you want rape, for example.  Pretend is _part of_ it.    The term \"pedophile of a drawing\" is non-sensical since a drawing is not pre-pubescent child.  It's a drawing.  For another angle, there are a lot of people who experience zero sexual arousal from adult animation.  Are these people somehow not straight\/gay because these drawings do NOT turn them on?","human_ref_B":"People who are attracted to lolicon aren't necessarily attracted to real children tho.      Depends on specific example for both the person and the drawing, but in general, drawings hardly look like anything real. Just like people who watch normal porn might not be into hentai, the opposite is true - lolicons might only like lolicon because the specific format makes it more visually appealing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":163.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grl6fah","c_root_id_B":"grkmuxi","created_at_utc_A":1616247532,"created_at_utc_B":1616229733,"score_A":22,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"if you're aroused by animated characters and not be real children you're not a pedophile anymore than a furry is into bestiality.  The brain - oddly enough - knows that something is an animated character drawing and if that is the subject of the arousal and a person doesn't experience that arousal from actual children...then...well....not a pedophile.    There are certainly pedoophiles who like loli.  However, there are people who like the pretend aspect of a lot of things and if you remove the pretend the arousal does not exist.  A whole lot of fetishism works like this.  Being turned on by a rape fantasy doesn't mean you want rape, for example.  Pretend is _part of_ it.    The term \"pedophile of a drawing\" is non-sensical since a drawing is not pre-pubescent child.  It's a drawing.  For another angle, there are a lot of people who experience zero sexual arousal from adult animation.  Are these people somehow not straight\/gay because these drawings do NOT turn them on?","human_ref_B":"Would you consider a man who has no attraction towards other men but finds an extremely stylised drawing of a man hot \"gay for drawings\"? This is not a gotcha, more of a probe. If your answer is \"yes,\" then as wack as I find your view, it's internally consistent and nothing but correction en masse will convince you that that's not how the term works. Being only one man, nothing I alone can do is en masse so I won't be getting any deltas. If your answer is \"no\" then I've identified an inconsistency in your position which must be reconciled.  Similarly, would you consider someone who got their rocks off to s\/m stuff a masochist even if they'd never engage in it in real life? Their claim would be \"I'm not aroused by X, I can be aroused by fictitious depictions of X\". In this case though, the X would be \"pain\". The view you've put forward would have those people labelled \"masochists for videos\" or some such.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17799.0,"score_ratio":4.4}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grku3a0","c_root_id_B":"grl6fah","created_at_utc_A":1616237651,"created_at_utc_B":1616247532,"score_A":3,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I myself find it disgusting. No matter how disgusting i find it, i have to defend it.  I believe personal freedom to be very important. A very important foundation to that is the principle \"You are free to do as you please, as long as it does not harm others\". This holds true in a lot of cases.  Lolis, as you explained, look like, act like and for all intents and purposes are drawings of children, no one denies that. However, nobody is harmed. I'd even argue it reduces harm as it fulfills a certain desire for certain people.  So, to sum it up: While it is very disgusting (I even feel weird typing this), no one is hurt. It is pedophilia, but not \"evil\" pedophilia.","human_ref_B":"if you're aroused by animated characters and not be real children you're not a pedophile anymore than a furry is into bestiality.  The brain - oddly enough - knows that something is an animated character drawing and if that is the subject of the arousal and a person doesn't experience that arousal from actual children...then...well....not a pedophile.    There are certainly pedoophiles who like loli.  However, there are people who like the pretend aspect of a lot of things and if you remove the pretend the arousal does not exist.  A whole lot of fetishism works like this.  Being turned on by a rape fantasy doesn't mean you want rape, for example.  Pretend is _part of_ it.    The term \"pedophile of a drawing\" is non-sensical since a drawing is not pre-pubescent child.  It's a drawing.  For another angle, there are a lot of people who experience zero sexual arousal from adult animation.  Are these people somehow not straight\/gay because these drawings do NOT turn them on?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9881.0,"score_ratio":7.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grl6fah","c_root_id_B":"grkvc31","created_at_utc_A":1616247532,"created_at_utc_B":1616238917,"score_A":22,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"if you're aroused by animated characters and not be real children you're not a pedophile anymore than a furry is into bestiality.  The brain - oddly enough - knows that something is an animated character drawing and if that is the subject of the arousal and a person doesn't experience that arousal from actual children...then...well....not a pedophile.    There are certainly pedoophiles who like loli.  However, there are people who like the pretend aspect of a lot of things and if you remove the pretend the arousal does not exist.  A whole lot of fetishism works like this.  Being turned on by a rape fantasy doesn't mean you want rape, for example.  Pretend is _part of_ it.    The term \"pedophile of a drawing\" is non-sensical since a drawing is not pre-pubescent child.  It's a drawing.  For another angle, there are a lot of people who experience zero sexual arousal from adult animation.  Are these people somehow not straight\/gay because these drawings do NOT turn them on?","human_ref_B":"> Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  How do you feel about adults who dress up and use make up in order to sexually role-play as children (exclusively with other adults)? Do you consider their sexual partners pedophiles as well?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8615.0,"score_ratio":7.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grkrc76","c_root_id_B":"grkpxj0","created_at_utc_A":1616234724,"created_at_utc_B":1616233142,"score_A":15,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"> Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is.   Why is it bad?","human_ref_B":">  First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence.   So anyone that likes Belle Delphines nsfw stuff is a pedophile?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1582.0,"score_ratio":1.0714285714}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grkmuxi","c_root_id_B":"grkpxj0","created_at_utc_A":1616229733,"created_at_utc_B":1616233142,"score_A":5,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Would you consider a man who has no attraction towards other men but finds an extremely stylised drawing of a man hot \"gay for drawings\"? This is not a gotcha, more of a probe. If your answer is \"yes,\" then as wack as I find your view, it's internally consistent and nothing but correction en masse will convince you that that's not how the term works. Being only one man, nothing I alone can do is en masse so I won't be getting any deltas. If your answer is \"no\" then I've identified an inconsistency in your position which must be reconciled.  Similarly, would you consider someone who got their rocks off to s\/m stuff a masochist even if they'd never engage in it in real life? Their claim would be \"I'm not aroused by X, I can be aroused by fictitious depictions of X\". In this case though, the X would be \"pain\". The view you've put forward would have those people labelled \"masochists for videos\" or some such.","human_ref_B":">  First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence.   So anyone that likes Belle Delphines nsfw stuff is a pedophile?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3409.0,"score_ratio":2.8}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grkmuxi","c_root_id_B":"grkrc76","created_at_utc_A":1616229733,"created_at_utc_B":1616234724,"score_A":5,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Would you consider a man who has no attraction towards other men but finds an extremely stylised drawing of a man hot \"gay for drawings\"? This is not a gotcha, more of a probe. If your answer is \"yes,\" then as wack as I find your view, it's internally consistent and nothing but correction en masse will convince you that that's not how the term works. Being only one man, nothing I alone can do is en masse so I won't be getting any deltas. If your answer is \"no\" then I've identified an inconsistency in your position which must be reconciled.  Similarly, would you consider someone who got their rocks off to s\/m stuff a masochist even if they'd never engage in it in real life? Their claim would be \"I'm not aroused by X, I can be aroused by fictitious depictions of X\". In this case though, the X would be \"pain\". The view you've put forward would have those people labelled \"masochists for videos\" or some such.","human_ref_B":"> Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is.   Why is it bad?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4991.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grkvsxw","c_root_id_B":"grkmuxi","created_at_utc_A":1616239370,"created_at_utc_B":1616229733,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Lolicon being equated to human pedophilia is unwarranted, and is the product of pedophilia hysteria, and stigmatization.  Being a \"pedophile of a drawing\" is probably accurate, but you're mistaken to assume it has meaningful correlations to pedophilia of human children. Not only is a cartoon significantly different from an actual human being, but it is not even a realistic cartoon, it is done in the \"moe\" art style, that is focused on a surreal essence of cuteness. Older anime have some children that look like cartoon children, the same cannot be said for moe, the face is inhuman, with gigantic eyes, and small mouths\/noses. This would go from adorably cute to nightmare inducing if you were to assemble a human being that is realistically accurate to a moe child.  Plus, while the body of said drawing is similar in stature to a child, it also can vary in important ways, such as wider hips, meatier thighs, and breast growth, all things that would not be present in a prepubescent human child. So, you end up with a cartoon that is not realistically human, and that has secondary sex characteristics that would be improbable for their young age\/relative size. Combine this with the fact that it is fictional, no child is being harmed, and no crime is taking place, and you have a radically different concept than pedophilia of human children or human child porn, and child sexual abuse.  You also need to consider the nature of sexual attraction to anime itself, it is not directly comparable to a similarly looking human, the faces are often done in the same moe style, so even an adult woman has a bizarrely cute\/young looking face that resembles a 3-5 yr old human child more so than a physically mature, adult female. The only interesting aspect of lolicon is that it is a small body, and size fetishes are completely normal when it comes to human beings, there's always demand for tiny pornstars that look like girls in their mid teens. You can call that pedophilic, but I think it's a slippery slope to declare pedophilic tendencies towards a fully grown adult woman.  A petite woman with very small breasts shouldn't be compared to a child simply because she is less physically developed. If anything, we need to come to the conclusion that breasts are giant sacks of fat, and large ones shouldn't be the pinnacle of femininity or womanhood. A woman that is close to a flat chest is not any less of a woman, and the idea that a female body can't be appreciated by a heterosexual male unless it is closer to the Instagram model ideal of beauty is both shortsighted, and insulting to those women. Male heterosexual attraction should be just as legitimate towards women that are petite\/cute, in a more youthful way, as ones that are outright voluptuous\/sexy, in a more seductive way.  Now, I have established that someone with a normal heterosexual attraction can find smaller, less developed female bodies sexually appealing, and I have not even delved into fetishism. If you account for fetishism, then it goes without question that you can be aroused by a fictional, non-realistic cartoon child in a sex act, and you could have even less predisposition towards petite\/less physically developed women than I already discussed. That's simply because fetishism is sexual arousal to the bizarre or strange, and it is our fear\/anxiety that fuel our sexual arousal, not necessarily any kind of genuine sexual interest.  You can find an erotic photoshoot of 10 yr old Brooke Shields online, she is a completely undeveloped child, with no visible breast growth. I found this real picture of a human being far more disturbing than any fictional loli rape hentai I have ever stumbled across in my rabbit hole of porn fetishes. The fictional element allows us to explore taboo ideas in ways that simply can't exist, I don't have to care about the rape of a fictional anime child, but I can't begin to imagine viewing a human child in the same sexual capacity, destroying their innocence for something as mundane as sexual pleasure is both disgustingly vile, and absolutely senseless.","human_ref_B":"Would you consider a man who has no attraction towards other men but finds an extremely stylised drawing of a man hot \"gay for drawings\"? This is not a gotcha, more of a probe. If your answer is \"yes,\" then as wack as I find your view, it's internally consistent and nothing but correction en masse will convince you that that's not how the term works. Being only one man, nothing I alone can do is en masse so I won't be getting any deltas. If your answer is \"no\" then I've identified an inconsistency in your position which must be reconciled.  Similarly, would you consider someone who got their rocks off to s\/m stuff a masochist even if they'd never engage in it in real life? Their claim would be \"I'm not aroused by X, I can be aroused by fictitious depictions of X\". In this case though, the X would be \"pain\". The view you've put forward would have those people labelled \"masochists for videos\" or some such.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9637.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grku3a0","c_root_id_B":"grkvsxw","created_at_utc_A":1616237651,"created_at_utc_B":1616239370,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I myself find it disgusting. No matter how disgusting i find it, i have to defend it.  I believe personal freedom to be very important. A very important foundation to that is the principle \"You are free to do as you please, as long as it does not harm others\". This holds true in a lot of cases.  Lolis, as you explained, look like, act like and for all intents and purposes are drawings of children, no one denies that. However, nobody is harmed. I'd even argue it reduces harm as it fulfills a certain desire for certain people.  So, to sum it up: While it is very disgusting (I even feel weird typing this), no one is hurt. It is pedophilia, but not \"evil\" pedophilia.","human_ref_B":"Lolicon being equated to human pedophilia is unwarranted, and is the product of pedophilia hysteria, and stigmatization.  Being a \"pedophile of a drawing\" is probably accurate, but you're mistaken to assume it has meaningful correlations to pedophilia of human children. Not only is a cartoon significantly different from an actual human being, but it is not even a realistic cartoon, it is done in the \"moe\" art style, that is focused on a surreal essence of cuteness. Older anime have some children that look like cartoon children, the same cannot be said for moe, the face is inhuman, with gigantic eyes, and small mouths\/noses. This would go from adorably cute to nightmare inducing if you were to assemble a human being that is realistically accurate to a moe child.  Plus, while the body of said drawing is similar in stature to a child, it also can vary in important ways, such as wider hips, meatier thighs, and breast growth, all things that would not be present in a prepubescent human child. So, you end up with a cartoon that is not realistically human, and that has secondary sex characteristics that would be improbable for their young age\/relative size. Combine this with the fact that it is fictional, no child is being harmed, and no crime is taking place, and you have a radically different concept than pedophilia of human children or human child porn, and child sexual abuse.  You also need to consider the nature of sexual attraction to anime itself, it is not directly comparable to a similarly looking human, the faces are often done in the same moe style, so even an adult woman has a bizarrely cute\/young looking face that resembles a 3-5 yr old human child more so than a physically mature, adult female. The only interesting aspect of lolicon is that it is a small body, and size fetishes are completely normal when it comes to human beings, there's always demand for tiny pornstars that look like girls in their mid teens. You can call that pedophilic, but I think it's a slippery slope to declare pedophilic tendencies towards a fully grown adult woman.  A petite woman with very small breasts shouldn't be compared to a child simply because she is less physically developed. If anything, we need to come to the conclusion that breasts are giant sacks of fat, and large ones shouldn't be the pinnacle of femininity or womanhood. A woman that is close to a flat chest is not any less of a woman, and the idea that a female body can't be appreciated by a heterosexual male unless it is closer to the Instagram model ideal of beauty is both shortsighted, and insulting to those women. Male heterosexual attraction should be just as legitimate towards women that are petite\/cute, in a more youthful way, as ones that are outright voluptuous\/sexy, in a more seductive way.  Now, I have established that someone with a normal heterosexual attraction can find smaller, less developed female bodies sexually appealing, and I have not even delved into fetishism. If you account for fetishism, then it goes without question that you can be aroused by a fictional, non-realistic cartoon child in a sex act, and you could have even less predisposition towards petite\/less physically developed women than I already discussed. That's simply because fetishism is sexual arousal to the bizarre or strange, and it is our fear\/anxiety that fuel our sexual arousal, not necessarily any kind of genuine sexual interest.  You can find an erotic photoshoot of 10 yr old Brooke Shields online, she is a completely undeveloped child, with no visible breast growth. I found this real picture of a human being far more disturbing than any fictional loli rape hentai I have ever stumbled across in my rabbit hole of porn fetishes. The fictional element allows us to explore taboo ideas in ways that simply can't exist, I don't have to care about the rape of a fictional anime child, but I can't begin to imagine viewing a human child in the same sexual capacity, destroying their innocence for something as mundane as sexual pleasure is both disgustingly vile, and absolutely senseless.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1719.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grkvsxw","c_root_id_B":"grkvc31","created_at_utc_A":1616239370,"created_at_utc_B":1616238917,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Lolicon being equated to human pedophilia is unwarranted, and is the product of pedophilia hysteria, and stigmatization.  Being a \"pedophile of a drawing\" is probably accurate, but you're mistaken to assume it has meaningful correlations to pedophilia of human children. Not only is a cartoon significantly different from an actual human being, but it is not even a realistic cartoon, it is done in the \"moe\" art style, that is focused on a surreal essence of cuteness. Older anime have some children that look like cartoon children, the same cannot be said for moe, the face is inhuman, with gigantic eyes, and small mouths\/noses. This would go from adorably cute to nightmare inducing if you were to assemble a human being that is realistically accurate to a moe child.  Plus, while the body of said drawing is similar in stature to a child, it also can vary in important ways, such as wider hips, meatier thighs, and breast growth, all things that would not be present in a prepubescent human child. So, you end up with a cartoon that is not realistically human, and that has secondary sex characteristics that would be improbable for their young age\/relative size. Combine this with the fact that it is fictional, no child is being harmed, and no crime is taking place, and you have a radically different concept than pedophilia of human children or human child porn, and child sexual abuse.  You also need to consider the nature of sexual attraction to anime itself, it is not directly comparable to a similarly looking human, the faces are often done in the same moe style, so even an adult woman has a bizarrely cute\/young looking face that resembles a 3-5 yr old human child more so than a physically mature, adult female. The only interesting aspect of lolicon is that it is a small body, and size fetishes are completely normal when it comes to human beings, there's always demand for tiny pornstars that look like girls in their mid teens. You can call that pedophilic, but I think it's a slippery slope to declare pedophilic tendencies towards a fully grown adult woman.  A petite woman with very small breasts shouldn't be compared to a child simply because she is less physically developed. If anything, we need to come to the conclusion that breasts are giant sacks of fat, and large ones shouldn't be the pinnacle of femininity or womanhood. A woman that is close to a flat chest is not any less of a woman, and the idea that a female body can't be appreciated by a heterosexual male unless it is closer to the Instagram model ideal of beauty is both shortsighted, and insulting to those women. Male heterosexual attraction should be just as legitimate towards women that are petite\/cute, in a more youthful way, as ones that are outright voluptuous\/sexy, in a more seductive way.  Now, I have established that someone with a normal heterosexual attraction can find smaller, less developed female bodies sexually appealing, and I have not even delved into fetishism. If you account for fetishism, then it goes without question that you can be aroused by a fictional, non-realistic cartoon child in a sex act, and you could have even less predisposition towards petite\/less physically developed women than I already discussed. That's simply because fetishism is sexual arousal to the bizarre or strange, and it is our fear\/anxiety that fuel our sexual arousal, not necessarily any kind of genuine sexual interest.  You can find an erotic photoshoot of 10 yr old Brooke Shields online, she is a completely undeveloped child, with no visible breast growth. I found this real picture of a human being far more disturbing than any fictional loli rape hentai I have ever stumbled across in my rabbit hole of porn fetishes. The fictional element allows us to explore taboo ideas in ways that simply can't exist, I don't have to care about the rape of a fictional anime child, but I can't begin to imagine viewing a human child in the same sexual capacity, destroying their innocence for something as mundane as sexual pleasure is both disgustingly vile, and absolutely senseless.","human_ref_B":"> Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  How do you feel about adults who dress up and use make up in order to sexually role-play as children (exclusively with other adults)? Do you consider their sexual partners pedophiles as well?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":453.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grkmuxi","c_root_id_B":"grl6679","created_at_utc_A":1616229733,"created_at_utc_B":1616247369,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Would you consider a man who has no attraction towards other men but finds an extremely stylised drawing of a man hot \"gay for drawings\"? This is not a gotcha, more of a probe. If your answer is \"yes,\" then as wack as I find your view, it's internally consistent and nothing but correction en masse will convince you that that's not how the term works. Being only one man, nothing I alone can do is en masse so I won't be getting any deltas. If your answer is \"no\" then I've identified an inconsistency in your position which must be reconciled.  Similarly, would you consider someone who got their rocks off to s\/m stuff a masochist even if they'd never engage in it in real life? Their claim would be \"I'm not aroused by X, I can be aroused by fictitious depictions of X\". In this case though, the X would be \"pain\". The view you've put forward would have those people labelled \"masochists for videos\" or some such.","human_ref_B":"People who are attracted to lolicon aren't necessarily attracted to real children tho.      Depends on specific example for both the person and the drawing, but in general, drawings hardly look like anything real. Just like people who watch normal porn might not be into hentai, the opposite is true - lolicons might only like lolicon because the specific format makes it more visually appealing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17636.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grku3a0","c_root_id_B":"grl6679","created_at_utc_A":1616237651,"created_at_utc_B":1616247369,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I myself find it disgusting. No matter how disgusting i find it, i have to defend it.  I believe personal freedom to be very important. A very important foundation to that is the principle \"You are free to do as you please, as long as it does not harm others\". This holds true in a lot of cases.  Lolis, as you explained, look like, act like and for all intents and purposes are drawings of children, no one denies that. However, nobody is harmed. I'd even argue it reduces harm as it fulfills a certain desire for certain people.  So, to sum it up: While it is very disgusting (I even feel weird typing this), no one is hurt. It is pedophilia, but not \"evil\" pedophilia.","human_ref_B":"People who are attracted to lolicon aren't necessarily attracted to real children tho.      Depends on specific example for both the person and the drawing, but in general, drawings hardly look like anything real. Just like people who watch normal porn might not be into hentai, the opposite is true - lolicons might only like lolicon because the specific format makes it more visually appealing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9718.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grl6679","c_root_id_B":"grkvc31","created_at_utc_A":1616247369,"created_at_utc_B":1616238917,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"People who are attracted to lolicon aren't necessarily attracted to real children tho.      Depends on specific example for both the person and the drawing, but in general, drawings hardly look like anything real. Just like people who watch normal porn might not be into hentai, the opposite is true - lolicons might only like lolicon because the specific format makes it more visually appealing.","human_ref_B":"> Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  How do you feel about adults who dress up and use make up in order to sexually role-play as children (exclusively with other adults)? Do you consider their sexual partners pedophiles as well?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8452.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grkmuxi","c_root_id_B":"grmfs4f","created_at_utc_A":1616229733,"created_at_utc_B":1616270385,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Would you consider a man who has no attraction towards other men but finds an extremely stylised drawing of a man hot \"gay for drawings\"? This is not a gotcha, more of a probe. If your answer is \"yes,\" then as wack as I find your view, it's internally consistent and nothing but correction en masse will convince you that that's not how the term works. Being only one man, nothing I alone can do is en masse so I won't be getting any deltas. If your answer is \"no\" then I've identified an inconsistency in your position which must be reconciled.  Similarly, would you consider someone who got their rocks off to s\/m stuff a masochist even if they'd never engage in it in real life? Their claim would be \"I'm not aroused by X, I can be aroused by fictitious depictions of X\". In this case though, the X would be \"pain\". The view you've put forward would have those people labelled \"masochists for videos\" or some such.","human_ref_B":"That's not how it works though.  While the Japanese roots do indeed mean pedophilia, the truth is that it's not a form of pedophilia.  Pedophilia by definition is being sexually attracted to kids. Literally kids. Not adolescents. That's ephebophilia.  First and foremost, drawings aren't kids. They aren't people. Yes they depict people. However real life people and people in drawings is wildly different.   As others have pointed out, this whole shit is similar to rape as sexual fantasy. It's immensely popular yet unsurprisingly, they don't adovace rape or something. Because a sexual fantasy is one thing. And real life it's an entirely different thing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":40652.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grku3a0","c_root_id_B":"grmfs4f","created_at_utc_A":1616237651,"created_at_utc_B":1616270385,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I myself find it disgusting. No matter how disgusting i find it, i have to defend it.  I believe personal freedom to be very important. A very important foundation to that is the principle \"You are free to do as you please, as long as it does not harm others\". This holds true in a lot of cases.  Lolis, as you explained, look like, act like and for all intents and purposes are drawings of children, no one denies that. However, nobody is harmed. I'd even argue it reduces harm as it fulfills a certain desire for certain people.  So, to sum it up: While it is very disgusting (I even feel weird typing this), no one is hurt. It is pedophilia, but not \"evil\" pedophilia.","human_ref_B":"That's not how it works though.  While the Japanese roots do indeed mean pedophilia, the truth is that it's not a form of pedophilia.  Pedophilia by definition is being sexually attracted to kids. Literally kids. Not adolescents. That's ephebophilia.  First and foremost, drawings aren't kids. They aren't people. Yes they depict people. However real life people and people in drawings is wildly different.   As others have pointed out, this whole shit is similar to rape as sexual fantasy. It's immensely popular yet unsurprisingly, they don't adovace rape or something. Because a sexual fantasy is one thing. And real life it's an entirely different thing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32734.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grltikc","c_root_id_B":"grmfs4f","created_at_utc_A":1616260106,"created_at_utc_B":1616270385,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I would personally make the argument that Lolis are closer to small people than children, of course that isn't saying much since children pretty much are small people. But what I'm trying to say is that most lolis are supposed to be cute and not child like, now what is the easiest way to make something resembling a human cute? Make them look like a child, people think children are cute it's a part of our nature.  What I'm trying to get at here is that I think lolis are child like not intentionally but as a consequence of the intent, the intent being to make cute people. And therefore most people who like them like them because they like cute things. Trying to say that people who like lolis do it solely for the fact that they resemble children is quite frankly, a bit ignorant.   If you want proof of this whole \"people like cuteness\" theory I've got going, you need only look at cat girls (I know cat boys exist but cat girls are way more popular. I think). To start of with this example I wanna point out that it isn't a perfect one, lolis resemble children way more than cat girls resemble cats so not quite the same. So we humans in general find cats cute, it why we keep them as pets and it's why cats vs dogs is still a debate to this day. Of course you don't want to make cat girls look exactly like cats or really close to cats because we humans (most of us atleast) do not feel sexual attraction to cats, so ya gotta make them look more like people in order to get that sweet sweet sexual satisfaction.  TL;DR: People like lolis not because they are children but because they are cute.  (Side note: Looking at the definition of lolicon in urban dictionary, it says attraction to any fictional person that resembles a child. So if people feel attraction to a drawing which is very much trying to resemble a child and not just a tiny person then I 100% agree with you that that is a form of pedophilia)","human_ref_B":"That's not how it works though.  While the Japanese roots do indeed mean pedophilia, the truth is that it's not a form of pedophilia.  Pedophilia by definition is being sexually attracted to kids. Literally kids. Not adolescents. That's ephebophilia.  First and foremost, drawings aren't kids. They aren't people. Yes they depict people. However real life people and people in drawings is wildly different.   As others have pointed out, this whole shit is similar to rape as sexual fantasy. It's immensely popular yet unsurprisingly, they don't adovace rape or something. Because a sexual fantasy is one thing. And real life it's an entirely different thing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10279.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grkvc31","c_root_id_B":"grmfs4f","created_at_utc_A":1616238917,"created_at_utc_B":1616270385,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  How do you feel about adults who dress up and use make up in order to sexually role-play as children (exclusively with other adults)? Do you consider their sexual partners pedophiles as well?","human_ref_B":"That's not how it works though.  While the Japanese roots do indeed mean pedophilia, the truth is that it's not a form of pedophilia.  Pedophilia by definition is being sexually attracted to kids. Literally kids. Not adolescents. That's ephebophilia.  First and foremost, drawings aren't kids. They aren't people. Yes they depict people. However real life people and people in drawings is wildly different.   As others have pointed out, this whole shit is similar to rape as sexual fantasy. It's immensely popular yet unsurprisingly, they don't adovace rape or something. Because a sexual fantasy is one thing. And real life it's an entirely different thing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31468.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grku3a0","c_root_id_B":"grnui6e","created_at_utc_A":1616237651,"created_at_utc_B":1616295288,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I myself find it disgusting. No matter how disgusting i find it, i have to defend it.  I believe personal freedom to be very important. A very important foundation to that is the principle \"You are free to do as you please, as long as it does not harm others\". This holds true in a lot of cases.  Lolis, as you explained, look like, act like and for all intents and purposes are drawings of children, no one denies that. However, nobody is harmed. I'd even argue it reduces harm as it fulfills a certain desire for certain people.  So, to sum it up: While it is very disgusting (I even feel weird typing this), no one is hurt. It is pedophilia, but not \"evil\" pedophilia.","human_ref_B":"' Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. '  Why? If no-one is getting hurt, what is the problem?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":57637.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grnui6e","c_root_id_B":"grltikc","created_at_utc_A":1616295288,"created_at_utc_B":1616260106,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"' Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. '  Why? If no-one is getting hurt, what is the problem?","human_ref_B":"I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I would personally make the argument that Lolis are closer to small people than children, of course that isn't saying much since children pretty much are small people. But what I'm trying to say is that most lolis are supposed to be cute and not child like, now what is the easiest way to make something resembling a human cute? Make them look like a child, people think children are cute it's a part of our nature.  What I'm trying to get at here is that I think lolis are child like not intentionally but as a consequence of the intent, the intent being to make cute people. And therefore most people who like them like them because they like cute things. Trying to say that people who like lolis do it solely for the fact that they resemble children is quite frankly, a bit ignorant.   If you want proof of this whole \"people like cuteness\" theory I've got going, you need only look at cat girls (I know cat boys exist but cat girls are way more popular. I think). To start of with this example I wanna point out that it isn't a perfect one, lolis resemble children way more than cat girls resemble cats so not quite the same. So we humans in general find cats cute, it why we keep them as pets and it's why cats vs dogs is still a debate to this day. Of course you don't want to make cat girls look exactly like cats or really close to cats because we humans (most of us atleast) do not feel sexual attraction to cats, so ya gotta make them look more like people in order to get that sweet sweet sexual satisfaction.  TL;DR: People like lolis not because they are children but because they are cute.  (Side note: Looking at the definition of lolicon in urban dictionary, it says attraction to any fictional person that resembles a child. So if people feel attraction to a drawing which is very much trying to resemble a child and not just a tiny person then I 100% agree with you that that is a form of pedophilia)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35182.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grnui6e","c_root_id_B":"grkvc31","created_at_utc_A":1616295288,"created_at_utc_B":1616238917,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"' Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. '  Why? If no-one is getting hurt, what is the problem?","human_ref_B":"> Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  How do you feel about adults who dress up and use make up in order to sexually role-play as children (exclusively with other adults)? Do you consider their sexual partners pedophiles as well?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":56371.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"m92m10","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia  Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their \"real\" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old .  I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.**  Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE.  If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.**  Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.**   So I AM civil.  Sources: https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/tr\/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk\/ingilizce\/paedophile ,  https:\/\/definition.org\/define\/lolicon\/ ,https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/lolicon#:\\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lolicon  Bonus: and Lolicon aka \u30ed\u30ea\u30b3\u30f3 *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to \"pedophilia\", \"sexual attraction to children\". Proof: https:\/\/imgur.com\/qaiMUuE","c_root_id_A":"grnui6e","c_root_id_B":"grmyyb3","created_at_utc_A":1616295288,"created_at_utc_B":1616278751,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"' Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. '  Why? If no-one is getting hurt, what is the problem?","human_ref_B":"I'm interested. According to you, what are the people that are aroused by other people in animal costumes? You know, the furries. Are those people just into undercover bestiality?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16537.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"dkpzt2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: \u201cCultural Appropriation\u201d is how all species, individuals and societies learn, adapt and improve. For millennia borrowing the best of what works from something or someone else has made everyone better, and people who are upset about this are off base on this issue. For background, I\u2019m pretty liberal. However, when it comes to \u201ccultural appropriation,\u201d I don\u2019t get how this is a bad thing.  Prehistoric humans advanced by watching and mimicking the productive habits of others. A cat or a dog learns to open a door by mimicking what humans do.   Children learn adult behavior and social skills via mimicry. All our previous societies advanced by taking the best ideas from others they encountered. Gunpowder from China. A lot of cultural things like eating with several different utensils, wearing different clothes at different occasions, toothpaste and many other things were developed by a musician in the Moorish court. Thankfully we adopted toothpaste more globally.  When I was in Istanbul, I\u2019d eat amazing food that had been borrowed from others and perfected over centuries. When I was there I\u2019d see trendy restaurants serving tres leches cake, which was brand new to them and not as good as at Hispanic restaurants, but give them a decade with it and I\u2019ll bet it\u2019s morphed and is now amazing!  When I admire someone better dressed and more fashionable, I\u2019ll initiate their style until I learn what works with what.   If \u201cimitation is the sincerest form of flattery\u201d and our entire developmental history as a species and as individuals is mostly based on imitation and appropriation....why is cultural appropriation a bad thing? It seems to me that India helped Britain develop better cuisine (some of the best Indian restaurants are in London), African Americans have helped American white people develop a semblance of rhythm and appreciation for a wider variety of music, and governments all over the world have borrowed from the laws and traditions of others to achieve better governance.   What am I missing here? In what way does \u201ccultural appropriation\u201d rob from or damage the source culture? Or are people who object to this just too far off base to be taken seriously?","c_root_id_A":"f4iox2s","c_root_id_B":"f4iut3r","created_at_utc_A":1571607464,"created_at_utc_B":1571609515,"score_A":13,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":"\"Cultural appropriation\" is not a bad thing per se. And most people that seriously look at the topic and try to understand it wouldn't claim that it is. (Meaning people who look at it from a sociological standpoint)   Cultural appropriation and the exchange of traditions and culture has always happened and is literally impossible to erradicate, even if you wanted to do such a thing. It happens all the time, everywhere. What people are taking issues with is not someone watching a Bollywood movie, eating asian food or wearing a Lederhosen, but rather the process in which a large company, which often comes from a historical colonializer nation, extracting culture from a group that was historically surpressed by colonialist nations and is still suffering from that past and it's consequences to this day.    This praxis often doesn't concern themselves with the culture they are borrowing from, especially when the works are older. I mean, do you know how many native american tribes there are and were? And how they all are practically have been condensed into exactly one homogenous picture of what a \"native american\" looks like? Concepts and culturally important practices have just been plugged out of various cultures and histories and are sold with no regards to what happens to the culture(s) where they originate in, often portraying stereotypes in the process.    So \"cultural appropriation\" is not about someone doing something they are not \"supposed to\", because it is not \"their culture\". It's methodical exploitation that often borders on some kind of neo-colonialism, seeing culture as yet another ressource to extract from indigenous people the world over.","human_ref_B":"A lot of the time, cultural appropriation has nothing to do with actually mimicking a culture. It's about taking images and bending them to the use of another culture.  For example, many Native American cultural honors (such as ceremonial garb) have been taken and used as Halloween costumes, or used as part of \"Wild West\" shows that have nothing to do with actual Native American culture, and are in fact often used to denigrate those cultures.  Let me use another example. Suppose another culture took the image of the Purple Heart and started giving out a sticker version of it to little children who get a small scratch as an \"owie fix\". Would that be okay? I suspect a lot of American service members would find this offensive, and I would say rightly so. It would be an unfair appropriation of military culture.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2051.0,"score_ratio":4.6153846154}
+{"post_id":"dkpzt2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: \u201cCultural Appropriation\u201d is how all species, individuals and societies learn, adapt and improve. For millennia borrowing the best of what works from something or someone else has made everyone better, and people who are upset about this are off base on this issue. For background, I\u2019m pretty liberal. However, when it comes to \u201ccultural appropriation,\u201d I don\u2019t get how this is a bad thing.  Prehistoric humans advanced by watching and mimicking the productive habits of others. A cat or a dog learns to open a door by mimicking what humans do.   Children learn adult behavior and social skills via mimicry. All our previous societies advanced by taking the best ideas from others they encountered. Gunpowder from China. A lot of cultural things like eating with several different utensils, wearing different clothes at different occasions, toothpaste and many other things were developed by a musician in the Moorish court. Thankfully we adopted toothpaste more globally.  When I was in Istanbul, I\u2019d eat amazing food that had been borrowed from others and perfected over centuries. When I was there I\u2019d see trendy restaurants serving tres leches cake, which was brand new to them and not as good as at Hispanic restaurants, but give them a decade with it and I\u2019ll bet it\u2019s morphed and is now amazing!  When I admire someone better dressed and more fashionable, I\u2019ll initiate their style until I learn what works with what.   If \u201cimitation is the sincerest form of flattery\u201d and our entire developmental history as a species and as individuals is mostly based on imitation and appropriation....why is cultural appropriation a bad thing? It seems to me that India helped Britain develop better cuisine (some of the best Indian restaurants are in London), African Americans have helped American white people develop a semblance of rhythm and appreciation for a wider variety of music, and governments all over the world have borrowed from the laws and traditions of others to achieve better governance.   What am I missing here? In what way does \u201ccultural appropriation\u201d rob from or damage the source culture? Or are people who object to this just too far off base to be taken seriously?","c_root_id_A":"f4iut3r","c_root_id_B":"f4io9yl","created_at_utc_A":1571609515,"created_at_utc_B":1571607288,"score_A":60,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"A lot of the time, cultural appropriation has nothing to do with actually mimicking a culture. It's about taking images and bending them to the use of another culture.  For example, many Native American cultural honors (such as ceremonial garb) have been taken and used as Halloween costumes, or used as part of \"Wild West\" shows that have nothing to do with actual Native American culture, and are in fact often used to denigrate those cultures.  Let me use another example. Suppose another culture took the image of the Purple Heart and started giving out a sticker version of it to little children who get a small scratch as an \"owie fix\". Would that be okay? I suspect a lot of American service members would find this offensive, and I would say rightly so. It would be an unfair appropriation of military culture.","human_ref_B":"cultural appropriation is generally the taking of some aspect of a culture without appreciation or understanding of the thing's meaning. It is taking something simply because it looks cool or its funny or whatnot. It's like doing a mockery of a rain dance with your friends when you were kids vs. developing an understanding and appreciation of and perhaps even taking part in the rituals and practices of a local Native American tribe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2227.0,"score_ratio":15.0}
+{"post_id":"dkpzt2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: \u201cCultural Appropriation\u201d is how all species, individuals and societies learn, adapt and improve. For millennia borrowing the best of what works from something or someone else has made everyone better, and people who are upset about this are off base on this issue. For background, I\u2019m pretty liberal. However, when it comes to \u201ccultural appropriation,\u201d I don\u2019t get how this is a bad thing.  Prehistoric humans advanced by watching and mimicking the productive habits of others. A cat or a dog learns to open a door by mimicking what humans do.   Children learn adult behavior and social skills via mimicry. All our previous societies advanced by taking the best ideas from others they encountered. Gunpowder from China. A lot of cultural things like eating with several different utensils, wearing different clothes at different occasions, toothpaste and many other things were developed by a musician in the Moorish court. Thankfully we adopted toothpaste more globally.  When I was in Istanbul, I\u2019d eat amazing food that had been borrowed from others and perfected over centuries. When I was there I\u2019d see trendy restaurants serving tres leches cake, which was brand new to them and not as good as at Hispanic restaurants, but give them a decade with it and I\u2019ll bet it\u2019s morphed and is now amazing!  When I admire someone better dressed and more fashionable, I\u2019ll initiate their style until I learn what works with what.   If \u201cimitation is the sincerest form of flattery\u201d and our entire developmental history as a species and as individuals is mostly based on imitation and appropriation....why is cultural appropriation a bad thing? It seems to me that India helped Britain develop better cuisine (some of the best Indian restaurants are in London), African Americans have helped American white people develop a semblance of rhythm and appreciation for a wider variety of music, and governments all over the world have borrowed from the laws and traditions of others to achieve better governance.   What am I missing here? In what way does \u201ccultural appropriation\u201d rob from or damage the source culture? Or are people who object to this just too far off base to be taken seriously?","c_root_id_A":"f4iox2s","c_root_id_B":"f4io9yl","created_at_utc_A":1571607464,"created_at_utc_B":1571607288,"score_A":13,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"\"Cultural appropriation\" is not a bad thing per se. And most people that seriously look at the topic and try to understand it wouldn't claim that it is. (Meaning people who look at it from a sociological standpoint)   Cultural appropriation and the exchange of traditions and culture has always happened and is literally impossible to erradicate, even if you wanted to do such a thing. It happens all the time, everywhere. What people are taking issues with is not someone watching a Bollywood movie, eating asian food or wearing a Lederhosen, but rather the process in which a large company, which often comes from a historical colonializer nation, extracting culture from a group that was historically surpressed by colonialist nations and is still suffering from that past and it's consequences to this day.    This praxis often doesn't concern themselves with the culture they are borrowing from, especially when the works are older. I mean, do you know how many native american tribes there are and were? And how they all are practically have been condensed into exactly one homogenous picture of what a \"native american\" looks like? Concepts and culturally important practices have just been plugged out of various cultures and histories and are sold with no regards to what happens to the culture(s) where they originate in, often portraying stereotypes in the process.    So \"cultural appropriation\" is not about someone doing something they are not \"supposed to\", because it is not \"their culture\". It's methodical exploitation that often borders on some kind of neo-colonialism, seeing culture as yet another ressource to extract from indigenous people the world over.","human_ref_B":"cultural appropriation is generally the taking of some aspect of a culture without appreciation or understanding of the thing's meaning. It is taking something simply because it looks cool or its funny or whatnot. It's like doing a mockery of a rain dance with your friends when you were kids vs. developing an understanding and appreciation of and perhaps even taking part in the rituals and practices of a local Native American tribe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":176.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9otij9","c_root_id_B":"i9osahk","created_at_utc_A":1653317412,"created_at_utc_B":1653316869,"score_A":25,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"This is the standard for all languages. Its to ease pronoucation, while same alphabet lots of languages pronouce things completly different.   Spanish version pf the united states directly is states united (estudios unidos). It would be confusing and harder.","human_ref_B":"If an English person tried to pronounce Den Haag (or even worse - s'Gravenhage) it would take a very long time for me to understand what they are trying to say.  If they say the Hague I can immediately understand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":543.0,"score_ratio":1.0869565217}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9ot0um","c_root_id_B":"i9otij9","created_at_utc_A":1653317197,"created_at_utc_B":1653317412,"score_A":15,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Doesn't it make sense for a language to prefer native words over artificially using foreign words?","human_ref_B":"This is the standard for all languages. Its to ease pronoucation, while same alphabet lots of languages pronouce things completly different.   Spanish version pf the united states directly is states united (estudios unidos). It would be confusing and harder.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":215.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9ot0um","c_root_id_B":"i9ou4ox","created_at_utc_A":1653317197,"created_at_utc_B":1653317681,"score_A":15,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Doesn't it make sense for a language to prefer native words over artificially using foreign words?","human_ref_B":"Well there's the practical problem that speakers of some languages are just not that familiar with the \"real\" names of some places. E.g. the arabic name for Egypt is Misr - a name that basically nobody who doesn't speak arabic is familiar with, and which would break everyone's association with Ancient Egypt (which itself comes from the greek name for Ancient Egypt, so is the \"real\" name we should use for Ancient Egypt, kinda). Not many English speakers could tell you where Shqip\u00ebria or Magyarorsz\u00e1g are. It also goes the other way where you have words that really wouldn't make sense in transliteration - \"United\" for example, as in several long-version names of countries is probably much preferable to translate rather than transliterate because \"United\" is just meaningless syllables to people who don't speak English.   Furthermore, names are political. They carry connotations. In the above example about Misr, I really wonder - would most Misryiin actually prefer that, as opposed to being known as Egyptians? Would they actually prefer the accuracy over breaking the association with Ancient Egypt? Would it legitimize Palestine more if we called it Filastin, or would that de-legitimize it by using the Arabic word instead of the biblical one?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":484.0,"score_ratio":1.1333333333}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9ouooa","c_root_id_B":"i9ovn30","created_at_utc_A":1653317929,"created_at_utc_B":1653318349,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"1. What your referring to is transliterating (when you talk about changing from one writing system to another), not translating. 2. Not all languages that use the same signs use them to mean the same sound, so sometimes the writing has to be changed. 3. Not all sounds exist in easily pronounceable ways in all languages, so sounds are often shifted to similar sounds that are more easily pronounced 4. Many languages have rules about what counts as a place-name that the translation must conform to for people to know it's a place.  These are all the reasons why exonyms (words for a place that are used by people who aren't from that place) come into existence. But what harm do they cause? There is occasional confusion, but most of the time the exonym and the endonym (what the people from the place call the place) are similar enough that any gripes are more pedantry than serious confusion, which are outweighed by the ease of pronunciation.","human_ref_B":"Is your CMV addressed only to English language and its speakers, or is it intended to be a general rule for others as well? If the latter - what about languages with a strong, nearly 1:1 phonetic spelling? In all likelihood, your approach will end up sacrificing either the original pronunciation or the spelling, or turn the foreign place name into a visibly \"strange\" and \"alien\" word (with unusual spelling and\/or pronunciation) that the users will find jarring. Or what if the language has an obligatory gendering of nouns, which may include specific rules how they are formed, such as enforcing certain word endings to signify the grammatical gender?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":420.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9oufh2","c_root_id_B":"i9ovn30","created_at_utc_A":1653317815,"created_at_utc_B":1653318349,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"What about words with direct translations?   C\u00f4te d'Ivoire likes to insist others use its French pronunciation, but English speakers aren\u2019t great with it - and it literally translates to \u2018Ivory Coast\u2019.  Similarly, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Their national languages include French and Swahili.  Swahili is written with the Latin alphabet.  Is it R\u00e9publique D\u00e9mocratique du Congo, or perhaps Jamhuri ya Kidemokrasia ya Kongo?  \u201cOriginal name\u201d is maybe the wrong phrase too - many countries & citieswill change their name.  Bombay -> Mumbai, for example.","human_ref_B":"Is your CMV addressed only to English language and its speakers, or is it intended to be a general rule for others as well? If the latter - what about languages with a strong, nearly 1:1 phonetic spelling? In all likelihood, your approach will end up sacrificing either the original pronunciation or the spelling, or turn the foreign place name into a visibly \"strange\" and \"alien\" word (with unusual spelling and\/or pronunciation) that the users will find jarring. Or what if the language has an obligatory gendering of nouns, which may include specific rules how they are formed, such as enforcing certain word endings to signify the grammatical gender?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":534.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9ousd9","c_root_id_B":"i9ovn30","created_at_utc_A":1653317974,"created_at_utc_B":1653318349,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"That\u2019s just what they\u2019ve been called for ages, for reasons older generations decided made sense.   I don\u2019t think anyone wants to learn tons of new city names just because it would be better so if we designed it from scratch. It\u2019s the same reason as to why all non-constructed languages have some redundant grammar rules left: re-learning it all would take much more effort than just keeping a somewhat flawed system.","human_ref_B":"Is your CMV addressed only to English language and its speakers, or is it intended to be a general rule for others as well? If the latter - what about languages with a strong, nearly 1:1 phonetic spelling? In all likelihood, your approach will end up sacrificing either the original pronunciation or the spelling, or turn the foreign place name into a visibly \"strange\" and \"alien\" word (with unusual spelling and\/or pronunciation) that the users will find jarring. Or what if the language has an obligatory gendering of nouns, which may include specific rules how they are formed, such as enforcing certain word endings to signify the grammatical gender?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":375.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9ouooa","c_root_id_B":"i9oufh2","created_at_utc_A":1653317929,"created_at_utc_B":1653317815,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"1. What your referring to is transliterating (when you talk about changing from one writing system to another), not translating. 2. Not all languages that use the same signs use them to mean the same sound, so sometimes the writing has to be changed. 3. Not all sounds exist in easily pronounceable ways in all languages, so sounds are often shifted to similar sounds that are more easily pronounced 4. Many languages have rules about what counts as a place-name that the translation must conform to for people to know it's a place.  These are all the reasons why exonyms (words for a place that are used by people who aren't from that place) come into existence. But what harm do they cause? There is occasional confusion, but most of the time the exonym and the endonym (what the people from the place call the place) are similar enough that any gripes are more pedantry than serious confusion, which are outweighed by the ease of pronunciation.","human_ref_B":"What about words with direct translations?   C\u00f4te d'Ivoire likes to insist others use its French pronunciation, but English speakers aren\u2019t great with it - and it literally translates to \u2018Ivory Coast\u2019.  Similarly, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Their national languages include French and Swahili.  Swahili is written with the Latin alphabet.  Is it R\u00e9publique D\u00e9mocratique du Congo, or perhaps Jamhuri ya Kidemokrasia ya Kongo?  \u201cOriginal name\u201d is maybe the wrong phrase too - many countries & citieswill change their name.  Bombay -> Mumbai, for example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":114.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9oufh2","c_root_id_B":"i9oxqhn","created_at_utc_A":1653317815,"created_at_utc_B":1653319264,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"What about words with direct translations?   C\u00f4te d'Ivoire likes to insist others use its French pronunciation, but English speakers aren\u2019t great with it - and it literally translates to \u2018Ivory Coast\u2019.  Similarly, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Their national languages include French and Swahili.  Swahili is written with the Latin alphabet.  Is it R\u00e9publique D\u00e9mocratique du Congo, or perhaps Jamhuri ya Kidemokrasia ya Kongo?  \u201cOriginal name\u201d is maybe the wrong phrase too - many countries & citieswill change their name.  Bombay -> Mumbai, for example.","human_ref_B":"I think another case that makes sense for translating at least part of city names comes when the \"proper\" city name includes words that give some level of information about the city that would only make sense for a native speaker if not translated.  Some examples, let's take New York City. In Spanish we call it Ciudad de Nueva York which is just the translation of it's name without changing the only part that it's just the name York. What does that tell to a Spanish speaker that knows no English? Well for starters it tells us that it's referring to the city specifically that it's a city, which is kind of important because New York is also the name of a state so to a Spanish speaker calling it \"Ciudad\" instead of \"City\" helps in clearing what we are talking about (someone that knows no English might not know the meaning of City and think that New York City is just another name for the state or that \"City\" is another word for \"state\", in the specific case of New York City which is one of the most famous cities in the world might not be a very common thing to happen but this happens in many cases like Kansas City for example). As a backwards example, an English speaker that knows no Spanish might read Provincia de Buenos Aires and think that it's talking about Buenos Aires City which they likely know that exist but not Buenos Aires Province which is a completely separate entity from Buenos Aires City (which different from the case of New York, one isn't even inside of the other), even if the official names are Ciudad de Buenos Aires and Provincia de Buenos Aires I think it's worth translating the part that does not refer to the name proper but to \"information\" from the name (and at the same time I think it would be silly to translate Ciudad de Buenos Aires to Good Airs City which would be a literal translation including the \"Buenos Aires\" part).  And another thing it tells us its that it's a \"newer\" version of York, someone that might not know much about New York City but knows York might infer that New York City that is was part of an English colony at some point since York is a city in England, and that it likely kept some level of it's English identity (same happens with other examples like knowing that New Mexico was at one point part of Mexico or that New Zealand was initially discovered by a Dutch explorer).  Another example I can think of which does not touch on the \"new\" or \"city\" part of many names, would be names that refer to it's geography. For example I can think of Newcastle Upon Tyne, I think translating it in Spanish to Newcastle Sobre Tyne is worthwhile and makes sense since it gives the Spanish speaker extra information that would go over their heads if they don't know the meaning of the English words (and also I think it would be silly to translate it to Nuevocastillo Sobre Tyne). That way a Spanish speaker would be able to infer that Newcastle Upon Tyne is a city placed over or around a river named Tyne. Another backwards example I can think of is Rio Grande do Sul which is Portuguese for Rio Grande of the South, an English speaker would be able to infer with that translation that Rio Grande do Sul is at the south of Brazil.  And extending this I would also like to mention the case of fictional places. Authors often name places with words or changes of words that give information to a speaker of their own language but would go over the heads of people that don't speak it. An pretty famous example is Westeros from The Song of Ice and Fire which any English speaker would correctly infer that that place must be somewhere in the west of something but an Spanish speaker would not understand it, luckily translators translated Westeros to \"Poniente\" which seems completely off but a Spanish speaker would recognize the name as an old way of referring to the west (it comes from the fact that \"Poner\" can be the verb \"set\" as in \"the Sun sets\").  > And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it  Would you say then that London should be renamed to Londinium since that was the original name it had? Or C\u00f3rdoba to Qarthuba? Places changed their names many times and often times not even the current people of the place refer to that place as the original name it had. This problem of misunderstanding historical names will exist either way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1449.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9ousd9","c_root_id_B":"i9oxqhn","created_at_utc_A":1653317974,"created_at_utc_B":1653319264,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"That\u2019s just what they\u2019ve been called for ages, for reasons older generations decided made sense.   I don\u2019t think anyone wants to learn tons of new city names just because it would be better so if we designed it from scratch. It\u2019s the same reason as to why all non-constructed languages have some redundant grammar rules left: re-learning it all would take much more effort than just keeping a somewhat flawed system.","human_ref_B":"I think another case that makes sense for translating at least part of city names comes when the \"proper\" city name includes words that give some level of information about the city that would only make sense for a native speaker if not translated.  Some examples, let's take New York City. In Spanish we call it Ciudad de Nueva York which is just the translation of it's name without changing the only part that it's just the name York. What does that tell to a Spanish speaker that knows no English? Well for starters it tells us that it's referring to the city specifically that it's a city, which is kind of important because New York is also the name of a state so to a Spanish speaker calling it \"Ciudad\" instead of \"City\" helps in clearing what we are talking about (someone that knows no English might not know the meaning of City and think that New York City is just another name for the state or that \"City\" is another word for \"state\", in the specific case of New York City which is one of the most famous cities in the world might not be a very common thing to happen but this happens in many cases like Kansas City for example). As a backwards example, an English speaker that knows no Spanish might read Provincia de Buenos Aires and think that it's talking about Buenos Aires City which they likely know that exist but not Buenos Aires Province which is a completely separate entity from Buenos Aires City (which different from the case of New York, one isn't even inside of the other), even if the official names are Ciudad de Buenos Aires and Provincia de Buenos Aires I think it's worth translating the part that does not refer to the name proper but to \"information\" from the name (and at the same time I think it would be silly to translate Ciudad de Buenos Aires to Good Airs City which would be a literal translation including the \"Buenos Aires\" part).  And another thing it tells us its that it's a \"newer\" version of York, someone that might not know much about New York City but knows York might infer that New York City that is was part of an English colony at some point since York is a city in England, and that it likely kept some level of it's English identity (same happens with other examples like knowing that New Mexico was at one point part of Mexico or that New Zealand was initially discovered by a Dutch explorer).  Another example I can think of which does not touch on the \"new\" or \"city\" part of many names, would be names that refer to it's geography. For example I can think of Newcastle Upon Tyne, I think translating it in Spanish to Newcastle Sobre Tyne is worthwhile and makes sense since it gives the Spanish speaker extra information that would go over their heads if they don't know the meaning of the English words (and also I think it would be silly to translate it to Nuevocastillo Sobre Tyne). That way a Spanish speaker would be able to infer that Newcastle Upon Tyne is a city placed over or around a river named Tyne. Another backwards example I can think of is Rio Grande do Sul which is Portuguese for Rio Grande of the South, an English speaker would be able to infer with that translation that Rio Grande do Sul is at the south of Brazil.  And extending this I would also like to mention the case of fictional places. Authors often name places with words or changes of words that give information to a speaker of their own language but would go over the heads of people that don't speak it. An pretty famous example is Westeros from The Song of Ice and Fire which any English speaker would correctly infer that that place must be somewhere in the west of something but an Spanish speaker would not understand it, luckily translators translated Westeros to \"Poniente\" which seems completely off but a Spanish speaker would recognize the name as an old way of referring to the west (it comes from the fact that \"Poner\" can be the verb \"set\" as in \"the Sun sets\").  > And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it  Would you say then that London should be renamed to Londinium since that was the original name it had? Or C\u00f3rdoba to Qarthuba? Places changed their names many times and often times not even the current people of the place refer to that place as the original name it had. This problem of misunderstanding historical names will exist either way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1290.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9oxqhn","c_root_id_B":"i9ow10w","created_at_utc_A":1653319264,"created_at_utc_B":1653318519,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I think another case that makes sense for translating at least part of city names comes when the \"proper\" city name includes words that give some level of information about the city that would only make sense for a native speaker if not translated.  Some examples, let's take New York City. In Spanish we call it Ciudad de Nueva York which is just the translation of it's name without changing the only part that it's just the name York. What does that tell to a Spanish speaker that knows no English? Well for starters it tells us that it's referring to the city specifically that it's a city, which is kind of important because New York is also the name of a state so to a Spanish speaker calling it \"Ciudad\" instead of \"City\" helps in clearing what we are talking about (someone that knows no English might not know the meaning of City and think that New York City is just another name for the state or that \"City\" is another word for \"state\", in the specific case of New York City which is one of the most famous cities in the world might not be a very common thing to happen but this happens in many cases like Kansas City for example). As a backwards example, an English speaker that knows no Spanish might read Provincia de Buenos Aires and think that it's talking about Buenos Aires City which they likely know that exist but not Buenos Aires Province which is a completely separate entity from Buenos Aires City (which different from the case of New York, one isn't even inside of the other), even if the official names are Ciudad de Buenos Aires and Provincia de Buenos Aires I think it's worth translating the part that does not refer to the name proper but to \"information\" from the name (and at the same time I think it would be silly to translate Ciudad de Buenos Aires to Good Airs City which would be a literal translation including the \"Buenos Aires\" part).  And another thing it tells us its that it's a \"newer\" version of York, someone that might not know much about New York City but knows York might infer that New York City that is was part of an English colony at some point since York is a city in England, and that it likely kept some level of it's English identity (same happens with other examples like knowing that New Mexico was at one point part of Mexico or that New Zealand was initially discovered by a Dutch explorer).  Another example I can think of which does not touch on the \"new\" or \"city\" part of many names, would be names that refer to it's geography. For example I can think of Newcastle Upon Tyne, I think translating it in Spanish to Newcastle Sobre Tyne is worthwhile and makes sense since it gives the Spanish speaker extra information that would go over their heads if they don't know the meaning of the English words (and also I think it would be silly to translate it to Nuevocastillo Sobre Tyne). That way a Spanish speaker would be able to infer that Newcastle Upon Tyne is a city placed over or around a river named Tyne. Another backwards example I can think of is Rio Grande do Sul which is Portuguese for Rio Grande of the South, an English speaker would be able to infer with that translation that Rio Grande do Sul is at the south of Brazil.  And extending this I would also like to mention the case of fictional places. Authors often name places with words or changes of words that give information to a speaker of their own language but would go over the heads of people that don't speak it. An pretty famous example is Westeros from The Song of Ice and Fire which any English speaker would correctly infer that that place must be somewhere in the west of something but an Spanish speaker would not understand it, luckily translators translated Westeros to \"Poniente\" which seems completely off but a Spanish speaker would recognize the name as an old way of referring to the west (it comes from the fact that \"Poner\" can be the verb \"set\" as in \"the Sun sets\").  > And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it  Would you say then that London should be renamed to Londinium since that was the original name it had? Or C\u00f3rdoba to Qarthuba? Places changed their names many times and often times not even the current people of the place refer to that place as the original name it had. This problem of misunderstanding historical names will exist either way.","human_ref_B":"Apart from the pronunciation argument, cities like Strasbourg in France and Gdansk in Poland used to be historically Prussian\/German which is why their German names are Strassburg and Danzig resp. German speakers are used to saying it like that so expecting them to use their current names is not realistic.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":745.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9padje","c_root_id_B":"i9ousd9","created_at_utc_A":1653324567,"created_at_utc_B":1653317974,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I mean, I feel like this one illustrates itself out when you realise that people didn't find a place and all agree on its name. People didn't build places and then go THIS IS THE NAME and everyone went 'hmm, yes'. Dialects and languages change how everything is said, and names are absolutely no exception. Places even more so. Places themselves don't even *keep* the same names over time, it's a fairly modern thing to write one down and stick to it, largely because most lands were always being taken or conquered by or inherited by or annexed by someone new. So different places just had different names.  How, standardizing them all is just a lot of effort... for what? What end does it actually achieve that meaningfully impacts our lives? It really doesn't.","human_ref_B":"That\u2019s just what they\u2019ve been called for ages, for reasons older generations decided made sense.   I don\u2019t think anyone wants to learn tons of new city names just because it would be better so if we designed it from scratch. It\u2019s the same reason as to why all non-constructed languages have some redundant grammar rules left: re-learning it all would take much more effort than just keeping a somewhat flawed system.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6593.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9padje","c_root_id_B":"i9ow10w","created_at_utc_A":1653324567,"created_at_utc_B":1653318519,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I mean, I feel like this one illustrates itself out when you realise that people didn't find a place and all agree on its name. People didn't build places and then go THIS IS THE NAME and everyone went 'hmm, yes'. Dialects and languages change how everything is said, and names are absolutely no exception. Places even more so. Places themselves don't even *keep* the same names over time, it's a fairly modern thing to write one down and stick to it, largely because most lands were always being taken or conquered by or inherited by or annexed by someone new. So different places just had different names.  How, standardizing them all is just a lot of effort... for what? What end does it actually achieve that meaningfully impacts our lives? It really doesn't.","human_ref_B":"Apart from the pronunciation argument, cities like Strasbourg in France and Gdansk in Poland used to be historically Prussian\/German which is why their German names are Strassburg and Danzig resp. German speakers are used to saying it like that so expecting them to use their current names is not realistic.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6048.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9pk2rl","c_root_id_B":"i9ousd9","created_at_utc_A":1653328644,"created_at_utc_B":1653317974,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  > And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it  Many countries and places have multiple correct names in their original language(s). E.g. Brussel, Bruxelles, Br\u00fcssel. Should English speakers be prepared for all variations?","human_ref_B":"That\u2019s just what they\u2019ve been called for ages, for reasons older generations decided made sense.   I don\u2019t think anyone wants to learn tons of new city names just because it would be better so if we designed it from scratch. It\u2019s the same reason as to why all non-constructed languages have some redundant grammar rules left: re-learning it all would take much more effort than just keeping a somewhat flawed system.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10670.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9ow10w","c_root_id_B":"i9pk2rl","created_at_utc_A":1653318519,"created_at_utc_B":1653328644,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Apart from the pronunciation argument, cities like Strasbourg in France and Gdansk in Poland used to be historically Prussian\/German which is why their German names are Strassburg and Danzig resp. German speakers are used to saying it like that so expecting them to use their current names is not realistic.","human_ref_B":"> But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  > And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it  Many countries and places have multiple correct names in their original language(s). E.g. Brussel, Bruxelles, Br\u00fcssel. Should English speakers be prepared for all variations?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10125.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9ousd9","c_root_id_B":"i9plkki","created_at_utc_A":1653317974,"created_at_utc_B":1653329276,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"That\u2019s just what they\u2019ve been called for ages, for reasons older generations decided made sense.   I don\u2019t think anyone wants to learn tons of new city names just because it would be better so if we designed it from scratch. It\u2019s the same reason as to why all non-constructed languages have some redundant grammar rules left: re-learning it all would take much more effort than just keeping a somewhat flawed system.","human_ref_B":"Because \u201cThe Hague\u201d is the name of the city in English. In fact, the city has two names in Dutch, both \u201cDen Haag\u201d and \u201c's-Gravenhage\u201d occur in Dutch.  Even in cases where the speling might not change, the pronunciation of \u201cAmsterdam\u201d or \u201cParis\u201d is very different in English than in their respective native languages, and this pronunciation can also change based on dialect.  Conversely, in Dutch the respective capitals of those countries are spelled \u201cLonden\u201d and \u201cParijs\u201d, which alters the spelling, but does not alter the pronunciation to any greater degree. In fact, one may argue that how Dutch people would read out \u201cLonden\u201d is a closer approximation to the English pronunciation than reading out \u201cLondon\u201d would be.  These differences in names simply grew to be due to historical sound shifts as all other differences in languages. French stopped pronouncing the \/s\/ at the end of words, thus \u201cParis\u201d in French came to be pronounced without the final s, whereas in Dutch, the historical long i became a diphthong, thus \u201cParijs\u201d, reflected in the spelling.  Obviously, speakers of different languages often can't even pronounce names properly. I'd love to see English or French speakers try to pronounce \u201cUtrecht\u201d as it is in Dutch. Of course, everyone knows that actual dialectual speakers of Utrechtian and Hague Dutch pronounce it in their own ways as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11302.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9plkki","c_root_id_B":"i9ow10w","created_at_utc_A":1653329276,"created_at_utc_B":1653318519,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Because \u201cThe Hague\u201d is the name of the city in English. In fact, the city has two names in Dutch, both \u201cDen Haag\u201d and \u201c's-Gravenhage\u201d occur in Dutch.  Even in cases where the speling might not change, the pronunciation of \u201cAmsterdam\u201d or \u201cParis\u201d is very different in English than in their respective native languages, and this pronunciation can also change based on dialect.  Conversely, in Dutch the respective capitals of those countries are spelled \u201cLonden\u201d and \u201cParijs\u201d, which alters the spelling, but does not alter the pronunciation to any greater degree. In fact, one may argue that how Dutch people would read out \u201cLonden\u201d is a closer approximation to the English pronunciation than reading out \u201cLondon\u201d would be.  These differences in names simply grew to be due to historical sound shifts as all other differences in languages. French stopped pronouncing the \/s\/ at the end of words, thus \u201cParis\u201d in French came to be pronounced without the final s, whereas in Dutch, the historical long i became a diphthong, thus \u201cParijs\u201d, reflected in the spelling.  Obviously, speakers of different languages often can't even pronounce names properly. I'd love to see English or French speakers try to pronounce \u201cUtrecht\u201d as it is in Dutch. Of course, everyone knows that actual dialectual speakers of Utrechtian and Hague Dutch pronounce it in their own ways as well.","human_ref_B":"Apart from the pronunciation argument, cities like Strasbourg in France and Gdansk in Poland used to be historically Prussian\/German which is why their German names are Strassburg and Danzig resp. German speakers are used to saying it like that so expecting them to use their current names is not realistic.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10757.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9ousd9","c_root_id_B":"i9sc5qs","created_at_utc_A":1653317974,"created_at_utc_B":1653383216,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"That\u2019s just what they\u2019ve been called for ages, for reasons older generations decided made sense.   I don\u2019t think anyone wants to learn tons of new city names just because it would be better so if we designed it from scratch. It\u2019s the same reason as to why all non-constructed languages have some redundant grammar rules left: re-learning it all would take much more effort than just keeping a somewhat flawed system.","human_ref_B":"I would say that even when there is a different alphabet, as long as it is at least similar, don't translate.  For example:  * Malm\u00f6. Why translate to Malmoe?  * G\u00f6teborg. No reason to translate to Gothenburg. That's not even close to sounding like Swedish...  * L\u00fcbeck. Why translate to Lubeck?  * M\u00fcnchen. Why is Munich more understandable?  What makes translations difficult is also that they are different in different languages. M\u00fcnchen is M\u00fcnchen in Swedish, but Munich in English. Helsinki is Helsingfors in Swedish, but Helsinki in English. This means that when speaking a foreign language, you don't just need to translate the ordinary words, you need to translate locations as well, which adds to the complexity.  Ideally, spelling and pronounciation of names should be as close to the native spelling and pronounciation as reasonably possible under all circumstances, to simplify learning and communication. If that system is used, even a misspelling is easily overcome, while, say, \"Helsingfors\" and \"Helsinki\" being the same place is far from obvious.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":65242.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9ow10w","c_root_id_B":"i9sc5qs","created_at_utc_A":1653318519,"created_at_utc_B":1653383216,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Apart from the pronunciation argument, cities like Strasbourg in France and Gdansk in Poland used to be historically Prussian\/German which is why their German names are Strassburg and Danzig resp. German speakers are used to saying it like that so expecting them to use their current names is not realistic.","human_ref_B":"I would say that even when there is a different alphabet, as long as it is at least similar, don't translate.  For example:  * Malm\u00f6. Why translate to Malmoe?  * G\u00f6teborg. No reason to translate to Gothenburg. That's not even close to sounding like Swedish...  * L\u00fcbeck. Why translate to Lubeck?  * M\u00fcnchen. Why is Munich more understandable?  What makes translations difficult is also that they are different in different languages. M\u00fcnchen is M\u00fcnchen in Swedish, but Munich in English. Helsinki is Helsingfors in Swedish, but Helsinki in English. This means that when speaking a foreign language, you don't just need to translate the ordinary words, you need to translate locations as well, which adds to the complexity.  Ideally, spelling and pronounciation of names should be as close to the native spelling and pronounciation as reasonably possible under all circumstances, to simplify learning and communication. If that system is used, even a misspelling is easily overcome, while, say, \"Helsingfors\" and \"Helsinki\" being the same place is far from obvious.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":64697.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"uw1kka","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Translating country\/city names should only be done when there are different alphabets Something I've always found annoying when communicating is how names are translated, sometimes without a reason  While I can see why it could be done, to make it easier to understand or pronounce, I don't think it should be done if there is no alphabet difference  Obviously, you can't expect someone who only speaks English to be able to read \"\u53f0\u7063\", so changing it to \"Taiwan\" is necessary to be able to read it  But, I don't see how translating \"Den Haag\" to \"The Hague\" is necessary, for example, even if it makes it somewhat easier to read, as the original already shared the same alphabet and did not really require a translation  And then, there is also the issue of people misunderstanding names because the translations are historical names, bad translations, or such, which all could be avoided by using the original name instead of translating it","c_root_id_A":"i9podmr","c_root_id_B":"i9sc5qs","created_at_utc_A":1653330478,"created_at_utc_B":1653383216,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You know Paris, France? In English, it's pronounced \"Paris\" but everyone else pronounces it without the \"s\" sound, like the French do. But with Venezia, everyone pronouces it the English way: \"Venice\". Like The Merchant of Venice or Death in Venice. WHY, THOUGH!? WHY ISN'T THE TITLE DEATH IN VENEZIA!? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!? IT TAKES PLACE IN ITALY, SO USE THE ITALIAN WORD, DAMMIT! THAT SHIT PISSES ME OFF! BUNCH OF DUMBASSES!","human_ref_B":"I would say that even when there is a different alphabet, as long as it is at least similar, don't translate.  For example:  * Malm\u00f6. Why translate to Malmoe?  * G\u00f6teborg. No reason to translate to Gothenburg. That's not even close to sounding like Swedish...  * L\u00fcbeck. Why translate to Lubeck?  * M\u00fcnchen. Why is Munich more understandable?  What makes translations difficult is also that they are different in different languages. M\u00fcnchen is M\u00fcnchen in Swedish, but Munich in English. Helsinki is Helsingfors in Swedish, but Helsinki in English. This means that when speaking a foreign language, you don't just need to translate the ordinary words, you need to translate locations as well, which adds to the complexity.  Ideally, spelling and pronounciation of names should be as close to the native spelling and pronounciation as reasonably possible under all circumstances, to simplify learning and communication. If that system is used, even a misspelling is easily overcome, while, say, \"Helsingfors\" and \"Helsinki\" being the same place is far from obvious.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":52738.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8b7zuq","c_root_id_B":"f8b8rl9","created_at_utc_A":1574429906,"created_at_utc_B":1574430561,"score_A":3,"score_B":40,"human_ref_A":"While I agree that \"mandatory fun\" can be out painful, the benefit for you is:  - contact with potential promotion opportunities - opportunity to display skills different from your primary job set (or develop those skills) - it can show that you have a company that understands that making money is more than just a bunch of strangers doing their job, many companies won't spend a fine for your comfort, so this says something - you develop a commonality with your peers, shared dislike for these events gives you fodder for conversation which helps beyond the day to day tasks","human_ref_B":"I assume you've heard the phrase \"No man is an island\" before?      This is not what that was intended to discuss, but it still applies. You astutely noted that avoiding these social events could impact things like you getting a promotion or a bonus. It turns out that this is very true, but not entirely for the reason I suspect you mean      Especially the promotion part.      At some point, if you get enough promotions you're going to be in charge of people. You're going to be management. Management means dealing with people. Management means communicating with people. Management means, sometimes unfortunately, handling peoples' idiosyncrasies and quirks. It means understanding how your department interacts with other departments, not just on the flow chart but in terms of human behavior.   &#x200B;  Now, it would suck for your boss to withhold a bonus because you didn't want to go play softball or whatever your company is doing, but it's not unreasonable for them to look at you avoiding everyone, choosing not to interact, and apparently having very little regard for your coworkers as human beings and say \"You know, that person just isn't going to make it in any kind of leadership role\"      You can't effectively lead a team if you aren't able to be part of a team.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":655.0,"score_ratio":13.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8b825o","c_root_id_B":"f8b8rl9","created_at_utc_A":1574429961,"created_at_utc_B":1574430561,"score_A":2,"score_B":40,"human_ref_A":"Are you talking about shipping in the Arctic regions?","human_ref_B":"I assume you've heard the phrase \"No man is an island\" before?      This is not what that was intended to discuss, but it still applies. You astutely noted that avoiding these social events could impact things like you getting a promotion or a bonus. It turns out that this is very true, but not entirely for the reason I suspect you mean      Especially the promotion part.      At some point, if you get enough promotions you're going to be in charge of people. You're going to be management. Management means dealing with people. Management means communicating with people. Management means, sometimes unfortunately, handling peoples' idiosyncrasies and quirks. It means understanding how your department interacts with other departments, not just on the flow chart but in terms of human behavior.   &#x200B;  Now, it would suck for your boss to withhold a bonus because you didn't want to go play softball or whatever your company is doing, but it's not unreasonable for them to look at you avoiding everyone, choosing not to interact, and apparently having very little regard for your coworkers as human beings and say \"You know, that person just isn't going to make it in any kind of leadership role\"      You can't effectively lead a team if you aren't able to be part of a team.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":600.0,"score_ratio":20.0}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8b8rl9","c_root_id_B":"f8b8hq2","created_at_utc_A":1574430561,"created_at_utc_B":1574430331,"score_A":40,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I assume you've heard the phrase \"No man is an island\" before?      This is not what that was intended to discuss, but it still applies. You astutely noted that avoiding these social events could impact things like you getting a promotion or a bonus. It turns out that this is very true, but not entirely for the reason I suspect you mean      Especially the promotion part.      At some point, if you get enough promotions you're going to be in charge of people. You're going to be management. Management means dealing with people. Management means communicating with people. Management means, sometimes unfortunately, handling peoples' idiosyncrasies and quirks. It means understanding how your department interacts with other departments, not just on the flow chart but in terms of human behavior.   &#x200B;  Now, it would suck for your boss to withhold a bonus because you didn't want to go play softball or whatever your company is doing, but it's not unreasonable for them to look at you avoiding everyone, choosing not to interact, and apparently having very little regard for your coworkers as human beings and say \"You know, that person just isn't going to make it in any kind of leadership role\"      You can't effectively lead a team if you aren't able to be part of a team.","human_ref_B":"Is it done by google translate? I'm having kind of a hard time understanding you. In my mind's eye, you are a hard-working Japanese person who just wants to work hard and be left alone... (Some people might consider this racist...)  Anyhow, your view, from what I could understand is that social and group activities in the workplace are a waste of time and money. In general and not only for you.   &#x200B;  > what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?   People usually work in groups. When people are not comfortable with each other they might be slow to ask for help, ask questions, tell what they are thinking, propose new ideas, etc. Those social exercises often make people feel more comfortable with their peers and by doing so increasing the company's productivity. This is usually true for a workforce that is required for high cognitive tasks. It has little consequence if factory workers are not completely comfortable with each other(Though consequence still exists.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":230.0,"score_ratio":20.0}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8ba3v9","c_root_id_B":"f8b8yp4","created_at_utc_A":1574431653,"created_at_utc_B":1574430726,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and **secure my position.**  You've pointed to the reason to do it. To, as you put it, secure your position at your place of employment.  Employees that don't complain, are supportive of their colleagues in the activity, and take it the extra mile stand out. To have a productive team takes more than people being okay at their job. Cohesion between colleagues can be almost more important than the work itself.  This is why those who share similar none work interests, such as sports, tend to land more promotions by those above them. Whereas those who just do their jobs tend not to land them as frequently.  It's just office politics","human_ref_B":"Practicing the pattern of a stand unit for a sporting event for 3 hours a day? I have no idea what this means.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":927.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8ba3v9","c_root_id_B":"f8b7zuq","created_at_utc_A":1574431653,"created_at_utc_B":1574429906,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and **secure my position.**  You've pointed to the reason to do it. To, as you put it, secure your position at your place of employment.  Employees that don't complain, are supportive of their colleagues in the activity, and take it the extra mile stand out. To have a productive team takes more than people being okay at their job. Cohesion between colleagues can be almost more important than the work itself.  This is why those who share similar none work interests, such as sports, tend to land more promotions by those above them. Whereas those who just do their jobs tend not to land them as frequently.  It's just office politics","human_ref_B":"While I agree that \"mandatory fun\" can be out painful, the benefit for you is:  - contact with potential promotion opportunities - opportunity to display skills different from your primary job set (or develop those skills) - it can show that you have a company that understands that making money is more than just a bunch of strangers doing their job, many companies won't spend a fine for your comfort, so this says something - you develop a commonality with your peers, shared dislike for these events gives you fodder for conversation which helps beyond the day to day tasks","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1747.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8b825o","c_root_id_B":"f8ba3v9","created_at_utc_A":1574429961,"created_at_utc_B":1574431653,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Are you talking about shipping in the Arctic regions?","human_ref_B":">I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and **secure my position.**  You've pointed to the reason to do it. To, as you put it, secure your position at your place of employment.  Employees that don't complain, are supportive of their colleagues in the activity, and take it the extra mile stand out. To have a productive team takes more than people being okay at their job. Cohesion between colleagues can be almost more important than the work itself.  This is why those who share similar none work interests, such as sports, tend to land more promotions by those above them. Whereas those who just do their jobs tend not to land them as frequently.  It's just office politics","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1692.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8ba3v9","c_root_id_B":"f8b8hq2","created_at_utc_A":1574431653,"created_at_utc_B":1574430331,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and **secure my position.**  You've pointed to the reason to do it. To, as you put it, secure your position at your place of employment.  Employees that don't complain, are supportive of their colleagues in the activity, and take it the extra mile stand out. To have a productive team takes more than people being okay at their job. Cohesion between colleagues can be almost more important than the work itself.  This is why those who share similar none work interests, such as sports, tend to land more promotions by those above them. Whereas those who just do their jobs tend not to land them as frequently.  It's just office politics","human_ref_B":"Is it done by google translate? I'm having kind of a hard time understanding you. In my mind's eye, you are a hard-working Japanese person who just wants to work hard and be left alone... (Some people might consider this racist...)  Anyhow, your view, from what I could understand is that social and group activities in the workplace are a waste of time and money. In general and not only for you.   &#x200B;  > what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?   People usually work in groups. When people are not comfortable with each other they might be slow to ask for help, ask questions, tell what they are thinking, propose new ideas, etc. Those social exercises often make people feel more comfortable with their peers and by doing so increasing the company's productivity. This is usually true for a workforce that is required for high cognitive tasks. It has little consequence if factory workers are not completely comfortable with each other(Though consequence still exists.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1322.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8b8yp4","c_root_id_B":"f8b7zuq","created_at_utc_A":1574430726,"created_at_utc_B":1574429906,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Practicing the pattern of a stand unit for a sporting event for 3 hours a day? I have no idea what this means.","human_ref_B":"While I agree that \"mandatory fun\" can be out painful, the benefit for you is:  - contact with potential promotion opportunities - opportunity to display skills different from your primary job set (or develop those skills) - it can show that you have a company that understands that making money is more than just a bunch of strangers doing their job, many companies won't spend a fine for your comfort, so this says something - you develop a commonality with your peers, shared dislike for these events gives you fodder for conversation which helps beyond the day to day tasks","labels":1,"seconds_difference":820.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8b825o","c_root_id_B":"f8b8yp4","created_at_utc_A":1574429961,"created_at_utc_B":1574430726,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Are you talking about shipping in the Arctic regions?","human_ref_B":"Practicing the pattern of a stand unit for a sporting event for 3 hours a day? I have no idea what this means.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":765.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8b8yp4","c_root_id_B":"f8b8hq2","created_at_utc_A":1574430726,"created_at_utc_B":1574430331,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Practicing the pattern of a stand unit for a sporting event for 3 hours a day? I have no idea what this means.","human_ref_B":"Is it done by google translate? I'm having kind of a hard time understanding you. In my mind's eye, you are a hard-working Japanese person who just wants to work hard and be left alone... (Some people might consider this racist...)  Anyhow, your view, from what I could understand is that social and group activities in the workplace are a waste of time and money. In general and not only for you.   &#x200B;  > what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?   People usually work in groups. When people are not comfortable with each other they might be slow to ask for help, ask questions, tell what they are thinking, propose new ideas, etc. Those social exercises often make people feel more comfortable with their peers and by doing so increasing the company's productivity. This is usually true for a workforce that is required for high cognitive tasks. It has little consequence if factory workers are not completely comfortable with each other(Though consequence still exists.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":395.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8bjwys","c_root_id_B":"f8b7zuq","created_at_utc_A":1574438621,"created_at_utc_B":1574429906,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Ok, you are very practical, and while there isn't anything wrong with that, it can hamstring you.  For one, advancements are made when others tell the boss you do your job well.  You won't grow if you don't have support, and if you pay no attention to your peers, you run the risk of becoming a shitty, oblivious boss, should you get promoted anyway.  Two, every person you know has knowledge you don't.  Working with them can give you new tools for your own work.  Teaching others makes your own knowledge more solid.  Three, if you can't make a fool of yourself, once in a while, any gains you make will be as fragile as glass, as you'll be fighting to maintain your position from people who will bear no loyalties from someone who always \"has it together\".  Everyone will just wait for you to fail for the laughs.  Four, and this will be a personal dig, but I learned this the hard way.  If you don't get used to adjusting to others, then everyone has to adjust to you.  Unless you are exceedingly important, it's probably best to learn to play along with others.  Cause 20 people won't change for 1 guy, most of the time.  Five, just a note, but watch how others do these events.  There will be overlap between work ethic and general intelligence between the stupid events and normal work.  These things are only useless if you are only thinking about yourself.  The amount of human information you can get about your coworkers in an informal setting is HUGE.  These are just my points, but I mostly hope you don't just up and leave, as long as the rest of the job is worth it.  It sounds like you need a little social exposure in the first place (and you don't wanna be me, learning these things AFTER my best job fired me)","human_ref_B":"While I agree that \"mandatory fun\" can be out painful, the benefit for you is:  - contact with potential promotion opportunities - opportunity to display skills different from your primary job set (or develop those skills) - it can show that you have a company that understands that making money is more than just a bunch of strangers doing their job, many companies won't spend a fine for your comfort, so this says something - you develop a commonality with your peers, shared dislike for these events gives you fodder for conversation which helps beyond the day to day tasks","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8715.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8bdihb","c_root_id_B":"f8bjwys","created_at_utc_A":1574434225,"created_at_utc_B":1574438621,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation  as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have  no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my  position.   >   >Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why?  Introvert here.  I'm not into these team building type activities.  I'm not into socializing with my co-workers.  However, I've worked at enough places to understand that any workplace that does these team building activities often enough is a place that values and prefers employees who mingles \/ socializes \/ bonds \/ communicates with their fellow teammates.  Not every workplace is like this.  You can go work elsewhere where they are not so obsessed about building teamwork and socializing to the same degree that this place does.  Other places can easily suit your introverted style better.  And yes, as you acknowledged your lack of participation may affect your bonus, promotion, and reputation.  It may also affect your job security, which is what you say you are trying to secure.  At some point, your bosses may feel like you no longer are a good fit because you are too introverted and don't engage with your co-workers enough and begin the quest to find a more extroverted replacement to take your place.  There's much more to securing your position than just being competent at your position.","human_ref_B":"Ok, you are very practical, and while there isn't anything wrong with that, it can hamstring you.  For one, advancements are made when others tell the boss you do your job well.  You won't grow if you don't have support, and if you pay no attention to your peers, you run the risk of becoming a shitty, oblivious boss, should you get promoted anyway.  Two, every person you know has knowledge you don't.  Working with them can give you new tools for your own work.  Teaching others makes your own knowledge more solid.  Three, if you can't make a fool of yourself, once in a while, any gains you make will be as fragile as glass, as you'll be fighting to maintain your position from people who will bear no loyalties from someone who always \"has it together\".  Everyone will just wait for you to fail for the laughs.  Four, and this will be a personal dig, but I learned this the hard way.  If you don't get used to adjusting to others, then everyone has to adjust to you.  Unless you are exceedingly important, it's probably best to learn to play along with others.  Cause 20 people won't change for 1 guy, most of the time.  Five, just a note, but watch how others do these events.  There will be overlap between work ethic and general intelligence between the stupid events and normal work.  These things are only useless if you are only thinking about yourself.  The amount of human information you can get about your coworkers in an informal setting is HUGE.  These are just my points, but I mostly hope you don't just up and leave, as long as the rest of the job is worth it.  It sounds like you need a little social exposure in the first place (and you don't wanna be me, learning these things AFTER my best job fired me)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4396.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8b825o","c_root_id_B":"f8bjwys","created_at_utc_A":1574429961,"created_at_utc_B":1574438621,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Are you talking about shipping in the Arctic regions?","human_ref_B":"Ok, you are very practical, and while there isn't anything wrong with that, it can hamstring you.  For one, advancements are made when others tell the boss you do your job well.  You won't grow if you don't have support, and if you pay no attention to your peers, you run the risk of becoming a shitty, oblivious boss, should you get promoted anyway.  Two, every person you know has knowledge you don't.  Working with them can give you new tools for your own work.  Teaching others makes your own knowledge more solid.  Three, if you can't make a fool of yourself, once in a while, any gains you make will be as fragile as glass, as you'll be fighting to maintain your position from people who will bear no loyalties from someone who always \"has it together\".  Everyone will just wait for you to fail for the laughs.  Four, and this will be a personal dig, but I learned this the hard way.  If you don't get used to adjusting to others, then everyone has to adjust to you.  Unless you are exceedingly important, it's probably best to learn to play along with others.  Cause 20 people won't change for 1 guy, most of the time.  Five, just a note, but watch how others do these events.  There will be overlap between work ethic and general intelligence between the stupid events and normal work.  These things are only useless if you are only thinking about yourself.  The amount of human information you can get about your coworkers in an informal setting is HUGE.  These are just my points, but I mostly hope you don't just up and leave, as long as the rest of the job is worth it.  It sounds like you need a little social exposure in the first place (and you don't wanna be me, learning these things AFTER my best job fired me)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8660.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8b8hq2","c_root_id_B":"f8bjwys","created_at_utc_A":1574430331,"created_at_utc_B":1574438621,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Is it done by google translate? I'm having kind of a hard time understanding you. In my mind's eye, you are a hard-working Japanese person who just wants to work hard and be left alone... (Some people might consider this racist...)  Anyhow, your view, from what I could understand is that social and group activities in the workplace are a waste of time and money. In general and not only for you.   &#x200B;  > what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?   People usually work in groups. When people are not comfortable with each other they might be slow to ask for help, ask questions, tell what they are thinking, propose new ideas, etc. Those social exercises often make people feel more comfortable with their peers and by doing so increasing the company's productivity. This is usually true for a workforce that is required for high cognitive tasks. It has little consequence if factory workers are not completely comfortable with each other(Though consequence still exists.)","human_ref_B":"Ok, you are very practical, and while there isn't anything wrong with that, it can hamstring you.  For one, advancements are made when others tell the boss you do your job well.  You won't grow if you don't have support, and if you pay no attention to your peers, you run the risk of becoming a shitty, oblivious boss, should you get promoted anyway.  Two, every person you know has knowledge you don't.  Working with them can give you new tools for your own work.  Teaching others makes your own knowledge more solid.  Three, if you can't make a fool of yourself, once in a while, any gains you make will be as fragile as glass, as you'll be fighting to maintain your position from people who will bear no loyalties from someone who always \"has it together\".  Everyone will just wait for you to fail for the laughs.  Four, and this will be a personal dig, but I learned this the hard way.  If you don't get used to adjusting to others, then everyone has to adjust to you.  Unless you are exceedingly important, it's probably best to learn to play along with others.  Cause 20 people won't change for 1 guy, most of the time.  Five, just a note, but watch how others do these events.  There will be overlap between work ethic and general intelligence between the stupid events and normal work.  These things are only useless if you are only thinking about yourself.  The amount of human information you can get about your coworkers in an informal setting is HUGE.  These are just my points, but I mostly hope you don't just up and leave, as long as the rest of the job is worth it.  It sounds like you need a little social exposure in the first place (and you don't wanna be me, learning these things AFTER my best job fired me)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8290.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8bdihb","c_root_id_B":"f8b825o","created_at_utc_A":1574434225,"created_at_utc_B":1574429961,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation  as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have  no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my  position.   >   >Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why?  Introvert here.  I'm not into these team building type activities.  I'm not into socializing with my co-workers.  However, I've worked at enough places to understand that any workplace that does these team building activities often enough is a place that values and prefers employees who mingles \/ socializes \/ bonds \/ communicates with their fellow teammates.  Not every workplace is like this.  You can go work elsewhere where they are not so obsessed about building teamwork and socializing to the same degree that this place does.  Other places can easily suit your introverted style better.  And yes, as you acknowledged your lack of participation may affect your bonus, promotion, and reputation.  It may also affect your job security, which is what you say you are trying to secure.  At some point, your bosses may feel like you no longer are a good fit because you are too introverted and don't engage with your co-workers enough and begin the quest to find a more extroverted replacement to take your place.  There's much more to securing your position than just being competent at your position.","human_ref_B":"Are you talking about shipping in the Arctic regions?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4264.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"dzyhkd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Icebreakers in a workplace is a total waste of time and money I was applied for a job to make money and spend time working on applied tasks so that the company could still make money.  Yet somehow my boss and colleagues would enjoy these socialising events as a form of 'building cooperation relationship' like there was no contacting among different departments or coworkers in the same room, and would convince or force me to participate.  For example, at this time of the year, there will be a sports day which I was forced to participate as a stand unit. Everybody in this regard would probably have to waste practically 3 hours a day every weekday practicing the pattern until the real deal. 3 hours in office hours to be precise.  Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my position.   Why should I support these events and traditions, and what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?  Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why? And what are the chances of encountering this again?  (Reposting because this got deleted)","c_root_id_A":"f8bdihb","c_root_id_B":"f8b8hq2","created_at_utc_A":1574434225,"created_at_utc_B":1574430331,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Avoiding these events might affect my bonus, promotion, and reputation  as well. I tried to ignore social relations within workplace as I have  no interest in anything other than coming to work and secure my  position.   >   >Ultimately, should I change my workplace entirely and why?  Introvert here.  I'm not into these team building type activities.  I'm not into socializing with my co-workers.  However, I've worked at enough places to understand that any workplace that does these team building activities often enough is a place that values and prefers employees who mingles \/ socializes \/ bonds \/ communicates with their fellow teammates.  Not every workplace is like this.  You can go work elsewhere where they are not so obsessed about building teamwork and socializing to the same degree that this place does.  Other places can easily suit your introverted style better.  And yes, as you acknowledged your lack of participation may affect your bonus, promotion, and reputation.  It may also affect your job security, which is what you say you are trying to secure.  At some point, your bosses may feel like you no longer are a good fit because you are too introverted and don't engage with your co-workers enough and begin the quest to find a more extroverted replacement to take your place.  There's much more to securing your position than just being competent at your position.","human_ref_B":"Is it done by google translate? I'm having kind of a hard time understanding you. In my mind's eye, you are a hard-working Japanese person who just wants to work hard and be left alone... (Some people might consider this racist...)  Anyhow, your view, from what I could understand is that social and group activities in the workplace are a waste of time and money. In general and not only for you.   &#x200B;  > what would be the most obvious, non-abstract benefits of it?   People usually work in groups. When people are not comfortable with each other they might be slow to ask for help, ask questions, tell what they are thinking, propose new ideas, etc. Those social exercises often make people feel more comfortable with their peers and by doing so increasing the company's productivity. This is usually true for a workforce that is required for high cognitive tasks. It has little consequence if factory workers are not completely comfortable with each other(Though consequence still exists.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3894.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk29m3t","c_root_id_B":"hk25ya8","created_at_utc_A":1636549172,"created_at_utc_B":1636547042,"score_A":74,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"This seems needlessly controversial. If instead, we merely switch from an opt-in organ donation system to an opt out, we would have an organ surplus while still allowing people control over how their bodies are handled after death.   Look, in opt-in countries, organ donation rates are around 20% while in opt-out countries donation rates are around 90%. Switching the default is all it takes since the real issue is that people don\u2019t want to confront their mortality.   Why create a huge fight with a bunch of selfish scared people over the last 10%?","human_ref_B":"> Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.  I don't disagree with you *in general*, but I disagree with this argument. This same argument could be used to justify grave robbery, desecration of graves and technically necrophilia.   A person's agency over their own body generally extends past their death unless there are extreme circumstances (quarantine due to deadly disease, for instance).  Even if you disagree with that thought, the majority of people will not accept their passed loved ones being handled just like a resource to be processed. This view extends to irreligious people, too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2130.0,"score_ratio":6.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk29lgy","c_root_id_B":"hk29m3t","created_at_utc_A":1636549162,"created_at_utc_B":1636549172,"score_A":7,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"Let people make choices for their body imo","human_ref_B":"This seems needlessly controversial. If instead, we merely switch from an opt-in organ donation system to an opt out, we would have an organ surplus while still allowing people control over how their bodies are handled after death.   Look, in opt-in countries, organ donation rates are around 20% while in opt-out countries donation rates are around 90%. Switching the default is all it takes since the real issue is that people don\u2019t want to confront their mortality.   Why create a huge fight with a bunch of selfish scared people over the last 10%?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10.0,"score_ratio":10.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk29m3t","c_root_id_B":"hk25fxw","created_at_utc_A":1636549172,"created_at_utc_B":1636546733,"score_A":74,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This seems needlessly controversial. If instead, we merely switch from an opt-in organ donation system to an opt out, we would have an organ surplus while still allowing people control over how their bodies are handled after death.   Look, in opt-in countries, organ donation rates are around 20% while in opt-out countries donation rates are around 90%. Switching the default is all it takes since the real issue is that people don\u2019t want to confront their mortality.   Why create a huge fight with a bunch of selfish scared people over the last 10%?","human_ref_B":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2439.0,"score_ratio":37.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2695f","c_root_id_B":"hk29m3t","created_at_utc_A":1636547227,"created_at_utc_B":1636549172,"score_A":4,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019re a fascist.  You believe you have the right to tell people what to do with their property.  Okay, so if I don\u2019t own my organs when I die, then how can I own my estate after I die?  What happens to the legal authority of wills?  Please name a single dictator who did not start out championing coercion for the greater good.","human_ref_B":"This seems needlessly controversial. If instead, we merely switch from an opt-in organ donation system to an opt out, we would have an organ surplus while still allowing people control over how their bodies are handled after death.   Look, in opt-in countries, organ donation rates are around 20% while in opt-out countries donation rates are around 90%. Switching the default is all it takes since the real issue is that people don\u2019t want to confront their mortality.   Why create a huge fight with a bunch of selfish scared people over the last 10%?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1945.0,"score_ratio":18.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk29m3t","c_root_id_B":"hk28vyw","created_at_utc_A":1636549172,"created_at_utc_B":1636548764,"score_A":74,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This seems needlessly controversial. If instead, we merely switch from an opt-in organ donation system to an opt out, we would have an organ surplus while still allowing people control over how their bodies are handled after death.   Look, in opt-in countries, organ donation rates are around 20% while in opt-out countries donation rates are around 90%. Switching the default is all it takes since the real issue is that people don\u2019t want to confront their mortality.   Why create a huge fight with a bunch of selfish scared people over the last 10%?","human_ref_B":"Someone else referred to this in passing in a comment, but how do you view wills\/inheritance? The wealth left behind when someone dies could presumably save a lot more lives if given to the appropriate charities, rather than to the person's descendants.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":408.0,"score_ratio":18.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2aa43","c_root_id_B":"hk25ya8","created_at_utc_A":1636549528,"created_at_utc_B":1636547042,"score_A":20,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you, but I still want to try to challenge this just for the sake of debate.  We know that there are plenty of corrupt professions out there.  What would happen in poorer countries if medical personnel started taking bribes from the wealthy?  \"Timmy has a *tiny* chance at pulling through, but if we just let him go, we can get $50k for his liver.\"    I know that sounds like an extreme example, but crazier things have happened.  And there was a similar case here in the States where a family allowed their eight year old to be euthanized so his organs could be donated.  Doctors said the boy would never come out of the coma, but people have defied medical declarations before.  So it's *possible*, although not probable, that the kid might have recovered some day.  That chance was taken away from him so his organs could be used.   https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/health\/archive\/2017\/06\/organ-donation-death\/530511\/","human_ref_B":"> Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.  I don't disagree with you *in general*, but I disagree with this argument. This same argument could be used to justify grave robbery, desecration of graves and technically necrophilia.   A person's agency over their own body generally extends past their death unless there are extreme circumstances (quarantine due to deadly disease, for instance).  Even if you disagree with that thought, the majority of people will not accept their passed loved ones being handled just like a resource to be processed. This view extends to irreligious people, too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2486.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk29lgy","c_root_id_B":"hk2aa43","created_at_utc_A":1636549162,"created_at_utc_B":1636549528,"score_A":7,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Let people make choices for their body imo","human_ref_B":"I agree with you, but I still want to try to challenge this just for the sake of debate.  We know that there are plenty of corrupt professions out there.  What would happen in poorer countries if medical personnel started taking bribes from the wealthy?  \"Timmy has a *tiny* chance at pulling through, but if we just let him go, we can get $50k for his liver.\"    I know that sounds like an extreme example, but crazier things have happened.  And there was a similar case here in the States where a family allowed their eight year old to be euthanized so his organs could be donated.  Doctors said the boy would never come out of the coma, but people have defied medical declarations before.  So it's *possible*, although not probable, that the kid might have recovered some day.  That chance was taken away from him so his organs could be used.   https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/health\/archive\/2017\/06\/organ-donation-death\/530511\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":366.0,"score_ratio":2.8571428571}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk25fxw","c_root_id_B":"hk2aa43","created_at_utc_A":1636546733,"created_at_utc_B":1636549528,"score_A":2,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","human_ref_B":"I agree with you, but I still want to try to challenge this just for the sake of debate.  We know that there are plenty of corrupt professions out there.  What would happen in poorer countries if medical personnel started taking bribes from the wealthy?  \"Timmy has a *tiny* chance at pulling through, but if we just let him go, we can get $50k for his liver.\"    I know that sounds like an extreme example, but crazier things have happened.  And there was a similar case here in the States where a family allowed their eight year old to be euthanized so his organs could be donated.  Doctors said the boy would never come out of the coma, but people have defied medical declarations before.  So it's *possible*, although not probable, that the kid might have recovered some day.  That chance was taken away from him so his organs could be used.   https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/health\/archive\/2017\/06\/organ-donation-death\/530511\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2795.0,"score_ratio":10.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2aa43","c_root_id_B":"hk2695f","created_at_utc_A":1636549528,"created_at_utc_B":1636547227,"score_A":20,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you, but I still want to try to challenge this just for the sake of debate.  We know that there are plenty of corrupt professions out there.  What would happen in poorer countries if medical personnel started taking bribes from the wealthy?  \"Timmy has a *tiny* chance at pulling through, but if we just let him go, we can get $50k for his liver.\"    I know that sounds like an extreme example, but crazier things have happened.  And there was a similar case here in the States where a family allowed their eight year old to be euthanized so his organs could be donated.  Doctors said the boy would never come out of the coma, but people have defied medical declarations before.  So it's *possible*, although not probable, that the kid might have recovered some day.  That chance was taken away from him so his organs could be used.   https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/health\/archive\/2017\/06\/organ-donation-death\/530511\/","human_ref_B":"You\u2019re a fascist.  You believe you have the right to tell people what to do with their property.  Okay, so if I don\u2019t own my organs when I die, then how can I own my estate after I die?  What happens to the legal authority of wills?  Please name a single dictator who did not start out championing coercion for the greater good.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2301.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2aa43","c_root_id_B":"hk28vyw","created_at_utc_A":1636549528,"created_at_utc_B":1636548764,"score_A":20,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you, but I still want to try to challenge this just for the sake of debate.  We know that there are plenty of corrupt professions out there.  What would happen in poorer countries if medical personnel started taking bribes from the wealthy?  \"Timmy has a *tiny* chance at pulling through, but if we just let him go, we can get $50k for his liver.\"    I know that sounds like an extreme example, but crazier things have happened.  And there was a similar case here in the States where a family allowed their eight year old to be euthanized so his organs could be donated.  Doctors said the boy would never come out of the coma, but people have defied medical declarations before.  So it's *possible*, although not probable, that the kid might have recovered some day.  That chance was taken away from him so his organs could be used.   https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/health\/archive\/2017\/06\/organ-donation-death\/530511\/","human_ref_B":"Someone else referred to this in passing in a comment, but how do you view wills\/inheritance? The wealth left behind when someone dies could presumably save a lot more lives if given to the appropriate charities, rather than to the person's descendants.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":764.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2awas","c_root_id_B":"hk2pstm","created_at_utc_A":1636549858,"created_at_utc_B":1636556770,"score_A":13,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"How about a less draconian suggestion?  Opt-Out Organ Donation? Make it the default assumption that you agree to be an organ donor, but allow\/require people to remove themselves from the donation list. This would greatly alleviate the waiting lists for organs, as most people don't feel strongly one way or the other and would be fine with it, and still allow for people who have reasons that lead them to their decision to not donate.  And, while it is fun to dunk on religious people, a study in Canada reviewed the beliefs of pretty much everyone and they \"learned that all major faith systems in Canada support donation.\" Even Jehovah's Witnesses \"do not believe that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence: decisions made regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual. The same is true regarding bone transplants.\" Source","human_ref_B":"Theoretically this sounds great\u2026save lives with something that has no further purpose\u2026  In reality I believe making it mandatory for everyone to donate organs would also make it an expectation that each person would care for their organs in a way that would keep them in optimum condition.  A person who smokes or drinks would be accused of \u201cselfishly ruining their lungs\/liver, and not thinking about how important those are to save lives\u201d\u2026  It could (not saying it\u2019s guaranteed to happen, just COULD)\u2026become immoral\/unethical to act in ANY way that reduces your organs health.  That eating sweets, not exercising regularly, or being \u201cunhealthy\u201d in ANY manner becomes socially \u201cwrong\u201d because your personal choices will reduce the chances of saving lives with your organs if you die in an accident\u2026  Once you start insisting a person makes ONE choice to save others, like organ donation, it makes it easier to socially argue for other actions too\u2026very slippery slope.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6912.0,"score_ratio":1.3076923077}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk25ya8","c_root_id_B":"hk2pstm","created_at_utc_A":1636547042,"created_at_utc_B":1636556770,"score_A":12,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"> Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.  I don't disagree with you *in general*, but I disagree with this argument. This same argument could be used to justify grave robbery, desecration of graves and technically necrophilia.   A person's agency over their own body generally extends past their death unless there are extreme circumstances (quarantine due to deadly disease, for instance).  Even if you disagree with that thought, the majority of people will not accept their passed loved ones being handled just like a resource to be processed. This view extends to irreligious people, too.","human_ref_B":"Theoretically this sounds great\u2026save lives with something that has no further purpose\u2026  In reality I believe making it mandatory for everyone to donate organs would also make it an expectation that each person would care for their organs in a way that would keep them in optimum condition.  A person who smokes or drinks would be accused of \u201cselfishly ruining their lungs\/liver, and not thinking about how important those are to save lives\u201d\u2026  It could (not saying it\u2019s guaranteed to happen, just COULD)\u2026become immoral\/unethical to act in ANY way that reduces your organs health.  That eating sweets, not exercising regularly, or being \u201cunhealthy\u201d in ANY manner becomes socially \u201cwrong\u201d because your personal choices will reduce the chances of saving lives with your organs if you die in an accident\u2026  Once you start insisting a person makes ONE choice to save others, like organ donation, it makes it easier to socially argue for other actions too\u2026very slippery slope.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9728.0,"score_ratio":1.4166666667}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2pstm","c_root_id_B":"hk29lgy","created_at_utc_A":1636556770,"created_at_utc_B":1636549162,"score_A":17,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Theoretically this sounds great\u2026save lives with something that has no further purpose\u2026  In reality I believe making it mandatory for everyone to donate organs would also make it an expectation that each person would care for their organs in a way that would keep them in optimum condition.  A person who smokes or drinks would be accused of \u201cselfishly ruining their lungs\/liver, and not thinking about how important those are to save lives\u201d\u2026  It could (not saying it\u2019s guaranteed to happen, just COULD)\u2026become immoral\/unethical to act in ANY way that reduces your organs health.  That eating sweets, not exercising regularly, or being \u201cunhealthy\u201d in ANY manner becomes socially \u201cwrong\u201d because your personal choices will reduce the chances of saving lives with your organs if you die in an accident\u2026  Once you start insisting a person makes ONE choice to save others, like organ donation, it makes it easier to socially argue for other actions too\u2026very slippery slope.","human_ref_B":"Let people make choices for their body imo","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7608.0,"score_ratio":2.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2pstm","c_root_id_B":"hk2kbng","created_at_utc_A":1636556770,"created_at_utc_B":1636554400,"score_A":17,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Theoretically this sounds great\u2026save lives with something that has no further purpose\u2026  In reality I believe making it mandatory for everyone to donate organs would also make it an expectation that each person would care for their organs in a way that would keep them in optimum condition.  A person who smokes or drinks would be accused of \u201cselfishly ruining their lungs\/liver, and not thinking about how important those are to save lives\u201d\u2026  It could (not saying it\u2019s guaranteed to happen, just COULD)\u2026become immoral\/unethical to act in ANY way that reduces your organs health.  That eating sweets, not exercising regularly, or being \u201cunhealthy\u201d in ANY manner becomes socially \u201cwrong\u201d because your personal choices will reduce the chances of saving lives with your organs if you die in an accident\u2026  Once you start insisting a person makes ONE choice to save others, like organ donation, it makes it easier to socially argue for other actions too\u2026very slippery slope.","human_ref_B":"To be honest #2 is pretty controversial issue for jehovah witnesses. Knew a kid who died because his mother refused to give him a blood transfusion after he wrecked his car. Some religions are actually like that. They don\u2019t give. They don\u2019t receive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2370.0,"score_ratio":3.4}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2pstm","c_root_id_B":"hk2l8os","created_at_utc_A":1636556770,"created_at_utc_B":1636554808,"score_A":17,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Theoretically this sounds great\u2026save lives with something that has no further purpose\u2026  In reality I believe making it mandatory for everyone to donate organs would also make it an expectation that each person would care for their organs in a way that would keep them in optimum condition.  A person who smokes or drinks would be accused of \u201cselfishly ruining their lungs\/liver, and not thinking about how important those are to save lives\u201d\u2026  It could (not saying it\u2019s guaranteed to happen, just COULD)\u2026become immoral\/unethical to act in ANY way that reduces your organs health.  That eating sweets, not exercising regularly, or being \u201cunhealthy\u201d in ANY manner becomes socially \u201cwrong\u201d because your personal choices will reduce the chances of saving lives with your organs if you die in an accident\u2026  Once you start insisting a person makes ONE choice to save others, like organ donation, it makes it easier to socially argue for other actions too\u2026very slippery slope.","human_ref_B":"How about no more organ \u201cdonation\u201d? The healthcare system makes a fortune off of transplants. They should be paying a fair price for organs relative to what they are charging to do a transplant. The money should go straight to the heirs of the donor. It should bypass all collections\/debts\/etc and not be part of just the estate. Obviously the tax man will want his cut, so tax it and pay out the net difference. I almost guarantee adding a financial incentive will drastically change the percentage of donors. Treat any egregious abuse of the system the same as any other murder for profit.  Take it a step further and combine euthanasia with organ donation. If some depressed hipster is going to kill themself anyway, why not offer an avenue where they can do some good at the same time?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1962.0,"score_ratio":2.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk25fxw","c_root_id_B":"hk2pstm","created_at_utc_A":1636546733,"created_at_utc_B":1636556770,"score_A":2,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","human_ref_B":"Theoretically this sounds great\u2026save lives with something that has no further purpose\u2026  In reality I believe making it mandatory for everyone to donate organs would also make it an expectation that each person would care for their organs in a way that would keep them in optimum condition.  A person who smokes or drinks would be accused of \u201cselfishly ruining their lungs\/liver, and not thinking about how important those are to save lives\u201d\u2026  It could (not saying it\u2019s guaranteed to happen, just COULD)\u2026become immoral\/unethical to act in ANY way that reduces your organs health.  That eating sweets, not exercising regularly, or being \u201cunhealthy\u201d in ANY manner becomes socially \u201cwrong\u201d because your personal choices will reduce the chances of saving lives with your organs if you die in an accident\u2026  Once you start insisting a person makes ONE choice to save others, like organ donation, it makes it easier to socially argue for other actions too\u2026very slippery slope.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10037.0,"score_ratio":8.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2695f","c_root_id_B":"hk2pstm","created_at_utc_A":1636547227,"created_at_utc_B":1636556770,"score_A":4,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019re a fascist.  You believe you have the right to tell people what to do with their property.  Okay, so if I don\u2019t own my organs when I die, then how can I own my estate after I die?  What happens to the legal authority of wills?  Please name a single dictator who did not start out championing coercion for the greater good.","human_ref_B":"Theoretically this sounds great\u2026save lives with something that has no further purpose\u2026  In reality I believe making it mandatory for everyone to donate organs would also make it an expectation that each person would care for their organs in a way that would keep them in optimum condition.  A person who smokes or drinks would be accused of \u201cselfishly ruining their lungs\/liver, and not thinking about how important those are to save lives\u201d\u2026  It could (not saying it\u2019s guaranteed to happen, just COULD)\u2026become immoral\/unethical to act in ANY way that reduces your organs health.  That eating sweets, not exercising regularly, or being \u201cunhealthy\u201d in ANY manner becomes socially \u201cwrong\u201d because your personal choices will reduce the chances of saving lives with your organs if you die in an accident\u2026  Once you start insisting a person makes ONE choice to save others, like organ donation, it makes it easier to socially argue for other actions too\u2026very slippery slope.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9543.0,"score_ratio":4.25}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk28vyw","c_root_id_B":"hk2pstm","created_at_utc_A":1636548764,"created_at_utc_B":1636556770,"score_A":4,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Someone else referred to this in passing in a comment, but how do you view wills\/inheritance? The wealth left behind when someone dies could presumably save a lot more lives if given to the appropriate charities, rather than to the person's descendants.","human_ref_B":"Theoretically this sounds great\u2026save lives with something that has no further purpose\u2026  In reality I believe making it mandatory for everyone to donate organs would also make it an expectation that each person would care for their organs in a way that would keep them in optimum condition.  A person who smokes or drinks would be accused of \u201cselfishly ruining their lungs\/liver, and not thinking about how important those are to save lives\u201d\u2026  It could (not saying it\u2019s guaranteed to happen, just COULD)\u2026become immoral\/unethical to act in ANY way that reduces your organs health.  That eating sweets, not exercising regularly, or being \u201cunhealthy\u201d in ANY manner becomes socially \u201cwrong\u201d because your personal choices will reduce the chances of saving lives with your organs if you die in an accident\u2026  Once you start insisting a person makes ONE choice to save others, like organ donation, it makes it easier to socially argue for other actions too\u2026very slippery slope.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8006.0,"score_ratio":4.25}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2awas","c_root_id_B":"hk25ya8","created_at_utc_A":1636549858,"created_at_utc_B":1636547042,"score_A":13,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"How about a less draconian suggestion?  Opt-Out Organ Donation? Make it the default assumption that you agree to be an organ donor, but allow\/require people to remove themselves from the donation list. This would greatly alleviate the waiting lists for organs, as most people don't feel strongly one way or the other and would be fine with it, and still allow for people who have reasons that lead them to their decision to not donate.  And, while it is fun to dunk on religious people, a study in Canada reviewed the beliefs of pretty much everyone and they \"learned that all major faith systems in Canada support donation.\" Even Jehovah's Witnesses \"do not believe that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence: decisions made regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual. The same is true regarding bone transplants.\" Source","human_ref_B":"> Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.  I don't disagree with you *in general*, but I disagree with this argument. This same argument could be used to justify grave robbery, desecration of graves and technically necrophilia.   A person's agency over their own body generally extends past their death unless there are extreme circumstances (quarantine due to deadly disease, for instance).  Even if you disagree with that thought, the majority of people will not accept their passed loved ones being handled just like a resource to be processed. This view extends to irreligious people, too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2816.0,"score_ratio":1.0833333333}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2awas","c_root_id_B":"hk29lgy","created_at_utc_A":1636549858,"created_at_utc_B":1636549162,"score_A":13,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"How about a less draconian suggestion?  Opt-Out Organ Donation? Make it the default assumption that you agree to be an organ donor, but allow\/require people to remove themselves from the donation list. This would greatly alleviate the waiting lists for organs, as most people don't feel strongly one way or the other and would be fine with it, and still allow for people who have reasons that lead them to their decision to not donate.  And, while it is fun to dunk on religious people, a study in Canada reviewed the beliefs of pretty much everyone and they \"learned that all major faith systems in Canada support donation.\" Even Jehovah's Witnesses \"do not believe that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence: decisions made regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual. The same is true regarding bone transplants.\" Source","human_ref_B":"Let people make choices for their body imo","labels":1,"seconds_difference":696.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk25fxw","c_root_id_B":"hk2awas","created_at_utc_A":1636546733,"created_at_utc_B":1636549858,"score_A":2,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","human_ref_B":"How about a less draconian suggestion?  Opt-Out Organ Donation? Make it the default assumption that you agree to be an organ donor, but allow\/require people to remove themselves from the donation list. This would greatly alleviate the waiting lists for organs, as most people don't feel strongly one way or the other and would be fine with it, and still allow for people who have reasons that lead them to their decision to not donate.  And, while it is fun to dunk on religious people, a study in Canada reviewed the beliefs of pretty much everyone and they \"learned that all major faith systems in Canada support donation.\" Even Jehovah's Witnesses \"do not believe that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence: decisions made regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual. The same is true regarding bone transplants.\" Source","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3125.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2695f","c_root_id_B":"hk2awas","created_at_utc_A":1636547227,"created_at_utc_B":1636549858,"score_A":4,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019re a fascist.  You believe you have the right to tell people what to do with their property.  Okay, so if I don\u2019t own my organs when I die, then how can I own my estate after I die?  What happens to the legal authority of wills?  Please name a single dictator who did not start out championing coercion for the greater good.","human_ref_B":"How about a less draconian suggestion?  Opt-Out Organ Donation? Make it the default assumption that you agree to be an organ donor, but allow\/require people to remove themselves from the donation list. This would greatly alleviate the waiting lists for organs, as most people don't feel strongly one way or the other and would be fine with it, and still allow for people who have reasons that lead them to their decision to not donate.  And, while it is fun to dunk on religious people, a study in Canada reviewed the beliefs of pretty much everyone and they \"learned that all major faith systems in Canada support donation.\" Even Jehovah's Witnesses \"do not believe that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence: decisions made regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual. The same is true regarding bone transplants.\" Source","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2631.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk28vyw","c_root_id_B":"hk2awas","created_at_utc_A":1636548764,"created_at_utc_B":1636549858,"score_A":4,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Someone else referred to this in passing in a comment, but how do you view wills\/inheritance? The wealth left behind when someone dies could presumably save a lot more lives if given to the appropriate charities, rather than to the person's descendants.","human_ref_B":"How about a less draconian suggestion?  Opt-Out Organ Donation? Make it the default assumption that you agree to be an organ donor, but allow\/require people to remove themselves from the donation list. This would greatly alleviate the waiting lists for organs, as most people don't feel strongly one way or the other and would be fine with it, and still allow for people who have reasons that lead them to their decision to not donate.  And, while it is fun to dunk on religious people, a study in Canada reviewed the beliefs of pretty much everyone and they \"learned that all major faith systems in Canada support donation.\" Even Jehovah's Witnesses \"do not believe that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence: decisions made regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual. The same is true regarding bone transplants.\" Source","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1094.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk25ya8","c_root_id_B":"hk25fxw","created_at_utc_A":1636547042,"created_at_utc_B":1636546733,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.  I don't disagree with you *in general*, but I disagree with this argument. This same argument could be used to justify grave robbery, desecration of graves and technically necrophilia.   A person's agency over their own body generally extends past their death unless there are extreme circumstances (quarantine due to deadly disease, for instance).  Even if you disagree with that thought, the majority of people will not accept their passed loved ones being handled just like a resource to be processed. This view extends to irreligious people, too.","human_ref_B":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":309.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk29lgy","c_root_id_B":"hk25fxw","created_at_utc_A":1636549162,"created_at_utc_B":1636546733,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Let people make choices for their body imo","human_ref_B":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2429.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2695f","c_root_id_B":"hk29lgy","created_at_utc_A":1636547227,"created_at_utc_B":1636549162,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019re a fascist.  You believe you have the right to tell people what to do with their property.  Okay, so if I don\u2019t own my organs when I die, then how can I own my estate after I die?  What happens to the legal authority of wills?  Please name a single dictator who did not start out championing coercion for the greater good.","human_ref_B":"Let people make choices for their body imo","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1935.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk29lgy","c_root_id_B":"hk28vyw","created_at_utc_A":1636549162,"created_at_utc_B":1636548764,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Let people make choices for their body imo","human_ref_B":"Someone else referred to this in passing in a comment, but how do you view wills\/inheritance? The wealth left behind when someone dies could presumably save a lot more lives if given to the appropriate charities, rather than to the person's descendants.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":398.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2kbng","c_root_id_B":"hk2l8os","created_at_utc_A":1636554400,"created_at_utc_B":1636554808,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"To be honest #2 is pretty controversial issue for jehovah witnesses. Knew a kid who died because his mother refused to give him a blood transfusion after he wrecked his car. Some religions are actually like that. They don\u2019t give. They don\u2019t receive.","human_ref_B":"How about no more organ \u201cdonation\u201d? The healthcare system makes a fortune off of transplants. They should be paying a fair price for organs relative to what they are charging to do a transplant. The money should go straight to the heirs of the donor. It should bypass all collections\/debts\/etc and not be part of just the estate. Obviously the tax man will want his cut, so tax it and pay out the net difference. I almost guarantee adding a financial incentive will drastically change the percentage of donors. Treat any egregious abuse of the system the same as any other murder for profit.  Take it a step further and combine euthanasia with organ donation. If some depressed hipster is going to kill themself anyway, why not offer an avenue where they can do some good at the same time?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":408.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk25fxw","c_root_id_B":"hk2kbng","created_at_utc_A":1636546733,"created_at_utc_B":1636554400,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","human_ref_B":"To be honest #2 is pretty controversial issue for jehovah witnesses. Knew a kid who died because his mother refused to give him a blood transfusion after he wrecked his car. Some religions are actually like that. They don\u2019t give. They don\u2019t receive.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7667.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2695f","c_root_id_B":"hk2kbng","created_at_utc_A":1636547227,"created_at_utc_B":1636554400,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019re a fascist.  You believe you have the right to tell people what to do with their property.  Okay, so if I don\u2019t own my organs when I die, then how can I own my estate after I die?  What happens to the legal authority of wills?  Please name a single dictator who did not start out championing coercion for the greater good.","human_ref_B":"To be honest #2 is pretty controversial issue for jehovah witnesses. Knew a kid who died because his mother refused to give him a blood transfusion after he wrecked his car. Some religions are actually like that. They don\u2019t give. They don\u2019t receive.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7173.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk28vyw","c_root_id_B":"hk2kbng","created_at_utc_A":1636548764,"created_at_utc_B":1636554400,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Someone else referred to this in passing in a comment, but how do you view wills\/inheritance? The wealth left behind when someone dies could presumably save a lot more lives if given to the appropriate charities, rather than to the person's descendants.","human_ref_B":"To be honest #2 is pretty controversial issue for jehovah witnesses. Knew a kid who died because his mother refused to give him a blood transfusion after he wrecked his car. Some religions are actually like that. They don\u2019t give. They don\u2019t receive.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5636.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk25fxw","c_root_id_B":"hk2l8os","created_at_utc_A":1636546733,"created_at_utc_B":1636554808,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","human_ref_B":"How about no more organ \u201cdonation\u201d? The healthcare system makes a fortune off of transplants. They should be paying a fair price for organs relative to what they are charging to do a transplant. The money should go straight to the heirs of the donor. It should bypass all collections\/debts\/etc and not be part of just the estate. Obviously the tax man will want his cut, so tax it and pay out the net difference. I almost guarantee adding a financial incentive will drastically change the percentage of donors. Treat any egregious abuse of the system the same as any other murder for profit.  Take it a step further and combine euthanasia with organ donation. If some depressed hipster is going to kill themself anyway, why not offer an avenue where they can do some good at the same time?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8075.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2l8os","c_root_id_B":"hk2695f","created_at_utc_A":1636554808,"created_at_utc_B":1636547227,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"How about no more organ \u201cdonation\u201d? The healthcare system makes a fortune off of transplants. They should be paying a fair price for organs relative to what they are charging to do a transplant. The money should go straight to the heirs of the donor. It should bypass all collections\/debts\/etc and not be part of just the estate. Obviously the tax man will want his cut, so tax it and pay out the net difference. I almost guarantee adding a financial incentive will drastically change the percentage of donors. Treat any egregious abuse of the system the same as any other murder for profit.  Take it a step further and combine euthanasia with organ donation. If some depressed hipster is going to kill themself anyway, why not offer an avenue where they can do some good at the same time?","human_ref_B":"You\u2019re a fascist.  You believe you have the right to tell people what to do with their property.  Okay, so if I don\u2019t own my organs when I die, then how can I own my estate after I die?  What happens to the legal authority of wills?  Please name a single dictator who did not start out championing coercion for the greater good.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7581.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk2l8os","c_root_id_B":"hk28vyw","created_at_utc_A":1636554808,"created_at_utc_B":1636548764,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"How about no more organ \u201cdonation\u201d? The healthcare system makes a fortune off of transplants. They should be paying a fair price for organs relative to what they are charging to do a transplant. The money should go straight to the heirs of the donor. It should bypass all collections\/debts\/etc and not be part of just the estate. Obviously the tax man will want his cut, so tax it and pay out the net difference. I almost guarantee adding a financial incentive will drastically change the percentage of donors. Treat any egregious abuse of the system the same as any other murder for profit.  Take it a step further and combine euthanasia with organ donation. If some depressed hipster is going to kill themself anyway, why not offer an avenue where they can do some good at the same time?","human_ref_B":"Someone else referred to this in passing in a comment, but how do you view wills\/inheritance? The wealth left behind when someone dies could presumably save a lot more lives if given to the appropriate charities, rather than to the person's descendants.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6044.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk31af4","c_root_id_B":"hk25fxw","created_at_utc_A":1636561385,"created_at_utc_B":1636546733,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I wouldn't want someone fucking my corpse. Why, because I still have some say over my body even when dead.","human_ref_B":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14652.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk4vy7v","c_root_id_B":"hk25fxw","created_at_utc_A":1636587693,"created_at_utc_B":1636546733,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"\"Everyone should be required to\"... Is *always* a bad idea. There just isn't anyway for billions of humans to be treated this way. Even in death you're dealing with survivors who's mental and spiritual health could be tied to some ritual forms that don't conform to your \"Everyone should be required to\"... mentality. Honestly it's authoritarian at best.","human_ref_B":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":40960.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk42g1h","c_root_id_B":"hk4vy7v","created_at_utc_A":1636575773,"created_at_utc_B":1636587693,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This topic seems to come up every once in a while. And I always say the same thing, why should anyone donate their organs for free and contribute to some    rich guys pocket? Everyone along the line from the doctor taking my    heart to the hospital admins and the insurance companies makes money off    my organs. Then at the end they charge a fortune to the guy getting the    organ (\\~1.4 million for a heart transplant).  So i don't think organs    should be provided by anyone for free, instead if you donate your organs    the hospitals and others making the money along the way should provide    compensation by paying for your (reasonable) funeral expenses. If they did that then    most people would be organ donors since it would relieve their families    of the costs of the funeral. Since technically, you can't buy most    organs in the US they could call it a gift to the deceased or just    charge an appropriate amount for the skin 'donation' to pay for the    funeral expenses.","human_ref_B":"\"Everyone should be required to\"... Is *always* a bad idea. There just isn't anyway for billions of humans to be treated this way. Even in death you're dealing with survivors who's mental and spiritual health could be tied to some ritual forms that don't conform to your \"Everyone should be required to\"... mentality. Honestly it's authoritarian at best.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11920.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk4j9rb","c_root_id_B":"hk4vy7v","created_at_utc_A":1636582349,"created_at_utc_B":1636587693,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Uhuh leave my body organs alone.","human_ref_B":"\"Everyone should be required to\"... Is *always* a bad idea. There just isn't anyway for billions of humans to be treated this way. Even in death you're dealing with survivors who's mental and spiritual health could be tied to some ritual forms that don't conform to your \"Everyone should be required to\"... mentality. Honestly it's authoritarian at best.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5344.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk4vy7v","c_root_id_B":"hk4oo1r","created_at_utc_A":1636587693,"created_at_utc_B":1636584565,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"\"Everyone should be required to\"... Is *always* a bad idea. There just isn't anyway for billions of humans to be treated this way. Even in death you're dealing with survivors who's mental and spiritual health could be tied to some ritual forms that don't conform to your \"Everyone should be required to\"... mentality. Honestly it's authoritarian at best.","human_ref_B":"Why isn't it your body in death, though? It's still my body. I should be able to dictate what's done with it. It's not about needing it or it would have been okay to forcibly take the organs that are not absolutely needed to survive like a kidney. Principles are principles.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3128.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk4qr3g","c_root_id_B":"hk4vy7v","created_at_utc_A":1636585437,"created_at_utc_B":1636587693,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I will resist anyone telling me I have to do anything from here on out. I reject more invasion by government.  So, gotta fully disagree with the organ mandate on principle.","human_ref_B":"\"Everyone should be required to\"... Is *always* a bad idea. There just isn't anyway for billions of humans to be treated this way. Even in death you're dealing with survivors who's mental and spiritual health could be tied to some ritual forms that don't conform to your \"Everyone should be required to\"... mentality. Honestly it's authoritarian at best.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2256.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk4vy7v","c_root_id_B":"hk4sflm","created_at_utc_A":1636587693,"created_at_utc_B":1636586162,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"\"Everyone should be required to\"... Is *always* a bad idea. There just isn't anyway for billions of humans to be treated this way. Even in death you're dealing with survivors who's mental and spiritual health could be tied to some ritual forms that don't conform to your \"Everyone should be required to\"... mentality. Honestly it's authoritarian at best.","human_ref_B":"Lab grown blood and organs will eventually solve this issue","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1531.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk25fxw","c_root_id_B":"hk2695f","created_at_utc_A":1636546733,"created_at_utc_B":1636547227,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019re a fascist.  You believe you have the right to tell people what to do with their property.  Okay, so if I don\u2019t own my organs when I die, then how can I own my estate after I die?  What happens to the legal authority of wills?  Please name a single dictator who did not start out championing coercion for the greater good.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":494.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk28vyw","c_root_id_B":"hk25fxw","created_at_utc_A":1636548764,"created_at_utc_B":1636546733,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Someone else referred to this in passing in a comment, but how do you view wills\/inheritance? The wealth left behind when someone dies could presumably save a lot more lives if given to the appropriate charities, rather than to the person's descendants.","human_ref_B":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2031.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk25fxw","c_root_id_B":"hk5rbj7","created_at_utc_A":1636546733,"created_at_utc_B":1636601806,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Nope. My body.  My choice.","human_ref_B":">3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.   I guess this is where I would issue a challenge, the dead body is essentially property which belongs to the family of the deceased.  If you argue that saving someone > property rights, then I think that presents an obvious problem.  >To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  The issue is not whether someone else should or should not die, which has nothing to do with us, but should we be compelled by government to save someone we bear no association to, at our own personal cost, be it in time, effort, property, etc...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":55073.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk42g1h","c_root_id_B":"hk5rbj7","created_at_utc_A":1636575773,"created_at_utc_B":1636601806,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This topic seems to come up every once in a while. And I always say the same thing, why should anyone donate their organs for free and contribute to some    rich guys pocket? Everyone along the line from the doctor taking my    heart to the hospital admins and the insurance companies makes money off    my organs. Then at the end they charge a fortune to the guy getting the    organ (\\~1.4 million for a heart transplant).  So i don't think organs    should be provided by anyone for free, instead if you donate your organs    the hospitals and others making the money along the way should provide    compensation by paying for your (reasonable) funeral expenses. If they did that then    most people would be organ donors since it would relieve their families    of the costs of the funeral. Since technically, you can't buy most    organs in the US they could call it a gift to the deceased or just    charge an appropriate amount for the skin 'donation' to pay for the    funeral expenses.","human_ref_B":">3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.   I guess this is where I would issue a challenge, the dead body is essentially property which belongs to the family of the deceased.  If you argue that saving someone > property rights, then I think that presents an obvious problem.  >To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  The issue is not whether someone else should or should not die, which has nothing to do with us, but should we be compelled by government to save someone we bear no association to, at our own personal cost, be it in time, effort, property, etc...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26033.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk4j9rb","c_root_id_B":"hk5rbj7","created_at_utc_A":1636582349,"created_at_utc_B":1636601806,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Uhuh leave my body organs alone.","human_ref_B":">3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.   I guess this is where I would issue a challenge, the dead body is essentially property which belongs to the family of the deceased.  If you argue that saving someone > property rights, then I think that presents an obvious problem.  >To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  The issue is not whether someone else should or should not die, which has nothing to do with us, but should we be compelled by government to save someone we bear no association to, at our own personal cost, be it in time, effort, property, etc...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19457.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk5rbj7","c_root_id_B":"hk4oo1r","created_at_utc_A":1636601806,"created_at_utc_B":1636584565,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.   I guess this is where I would issue a challenge, the dead body is essentially property which belongs to the family of the deceased.  If you argue that saving someone > property rights, then I think that presents an obvious problem.  >To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  The issue is not whether someone else should or should not die, which has nothing to do with us, but should we be compelled by government to save someone we bear no association to, at our own personal cost, be it in time, effort, property, etc...","human_ref_B":"Why isn't it your body in death, though? It's still my body. I should be able to dictate what's done with it. It's not about needing it or it would have been okay to forcibly take the organs that are not absolutely needed to survive like a kidney. Principles are principles.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17241.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk5rbj7","c_root_id_B":"hk4qr3g","created_at_utc_A":1636601806,"created_at_utc_B":1636585437,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.   I guess this is where I would issue a challenge, the dead body is essentially property which belongs to the family of the deceased.  If you argue that saving someone > property rights, then I think that presents an obvious problem.  >To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  The issue is not whether someone else should or should not die, which has nothing to do with us, but should we be compelled by government to save someone we bear no association to, at our own personal cost, be it in time, effort, property, etc...","human_ref_B":"I will resist anyone telling me I have to do anything from here on out. I reject more invasion by government.  So, gotta fully disagree with the organ mandate on principle.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16369.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk4sflm","c_root_id_B":"hk5rbj7","created_at_utc_A":1636586162,"created_at_utc_B":1636601806,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Lab grown blood and organs will eventually solve this issue","human_ref_B":">3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.   I guess this is where I would issue a challenge, the dead body is essentially property which belongs to the family of the deceased.  If you argue that saving someone > property rights, then I think that presents an obvious problem.  >To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  The issue is not whether someone else should or should not die, which has nothing to do with us, but should we be compelled by government to save someone we bear no association to, at our own personal cost, be it in time, effort, property, etc...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15644.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"qqt4i3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Everyone should be required to be an organ donor upon death. **1- WHY**- The reason why everyone should automatically be required to be an organ donor upon death is simple, after you die you don't need your organs, if you happen to die an unfortunate and untimely death with your organs still in good health save a life. It's selfish not to.  **2- WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELEIFS**- Does your religious beliefs also require you to not accept a donated organ and instead go to the afterlife? Or is this a case of My body is too sacred to save someone else, but someone else body can be used to save me!  If it's the former then fine you have a fair point and a consistent view that the body after death caries significance and thus should not be messed with. Thus you will follow that to your grave.  If its the later you have no standing, and your argument is full of crap, you can't have it both ways, either the body is important to the soul and thus must be left alone and so taking part of someone's body to heal yourself if sacrilegious or its not.  **3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY**- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral. To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  **4- SO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BLOOD TOO?**- All able bodied healthy adults who can give blood should when called upon. If they have a shortage and need blood I see no reason not to go give a safe amount of blood. However since there is a LOT of red tape I kept this out of my over arching view. When it becomes no more then a 15 minute event in someone's day maybe but with all the red tape I can see why people wouldn't.","c_root_id_A":"hk5ax5f","c_root_id_B":"hk5rbj7","created_at_utc_A":1636594379,"created_at_utc_B":1636601806,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Disagree.   Mandatory organ harvesting is immoral.","human_ref_B":">3- PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY- Correct in life, not in death to value the dead over the living is immoral.   I guess this is where I would issue a challenge, the dead body is essentially property which belongs to the family of the deceased.  If you argue that saving someone > property rights, then I think that presents an obvious problem.  >To say that because you have died someone else should die is antithetical to the very notion of morality.  The issue is not whether someone else should or should not die, which has nothing to do with us, but should we be compelled by government to save someone we bear no association to, at our own personal cost, be it in time, effort, property, etc...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7427.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"1itcez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I believe that people who travel to war-torn and oppressed areas have no right to act surprised when bad things happen to them - CMV Disclaimer:  I'm not saying anyone \"deserves\" anything, only that they don't get to act shocked about it  Every other day, we hear of someone from a western country (usually the US, but that might just be because my news is biased toward the US), that travels to a tumultuous area (Iran, Egypt, etc.) and finds that they somehow aren't immune to getting caught up in it.  Most recently, we see the story of a Norwegian woman in Dubai who was raped, and then jailed when she went to the police.   I am by no means saying that she deserved it, or defending anyone in Dubai, but I don't think we have the right to travel to a country with vastly different cultural beliefs, and then act surprised when we get treated according to those beliefs.    Change my view about this.  Convince me that westerners really do have the right to travel to these kinds of places and expect to be safe the whole time.","c_root_id_A":"cb7tqbl","c_root_id_B":"cb7vdsu","created_at_utc_A":1374505220,"created_at_utc_B":1374509887,"score_A":7,"score_B":80,"human_ref_A":"People have the right to act however they want assuming they don't impose on others' liberty (and they don't) and they also have the right to expect whatever they want.   Yes, it is stupid to go somewhere without doing some research first and\/or taking security measures, but it's fully within their rights.","human_ref_B":"You're wrong because you think the exception is the norm and then judge people for that. When you follow the news you might think that Egypt is completely protesting and rioting, Dubai is completely unsafe for women, and the same goes for a country like India (I'm assuming you think the same thing when you hear about women getting raped in India). But you're ignoring the fact that the protests in Egypt were very localized to certain areas, the majority of women who travel to Dubai are not sexually assaulted, and that large areas of India are in fact safe to be.   Your largest mistake is that you let the news (which is biased towards sensationalism) completely determine your view of certain areas and then judge people for the bad things that happen to them.  Would you accept that if people did that to the US? Almost every day we hear about people getting shot in drug raids by the police, people getting shot by gangs, and people having gun accidents. If a tourist from Switzerland travelled to the US and ended up getting shot (by whom doesn't even matter) would you say the same thing? That they shouldn't be shocked to be shot when they travel to the US because they travelled to a country with vastly different cultural beliefs and you shouldn't be surprised when you get treated according to those beliefs. When you response to that is that the US is a large country and that you can travel through it without getting shot then you should realize that the same thing goes for Egypt, Dubai, and India. If you only let the news determine your view of a country you will have a very distorted view.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4667.0,"score_ratio":11.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"1itcez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I believe that people who travel to war-torn and oppressed areas have no right to act surprised when bad things happen to them - CMV Disclaimer:  I'm not saying anyone \"deserves\" anything, only that they don't get to act shocked about it  Every other day, we hear of someone from a western country (usually the US, but that might just be because my news is biased toward the US), that travels to a tumultuous area (Iran, Egypt, etc.) and finds that they somehow aren't immune to getting caught up in it.  Most recently, we see the story of a Norwegian woman in Dubai who was raped, and then jailed when she went to the police.   I am by no means saying that she deserved it, or defending anyone in Dubai, but I don't think we have the right to travel to a country with vastly different cultural beliefs, and then act surprised when we get treated according to those beliefs.    Change my view about this.  Convince me that westerners really do have the right to travel to these kinds of places and expect to be safe the whole time.","c_root_id_A":"cb802ai","c_root_id_B":"cb7y5x6","created_at_utc_A":1374521540,"created_at_utc_B":1374516930,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"From your question I assume that you live in the US.  This is the country with the highest gun violence rate in the Western world.  Does it follow that if you fall victim to gun violence, you \"don't get to act shocked about it\"?  I believe that it would still be reasonable for you to be shocked.  How is that different from the travel examples you supply?","human_ref_B":"What is the \"right to act surprised?\" Where does this right arise from? Is it a natural right that all humans hold? It's certainly not a legal right. How does one exercise this right? It doesn't seem to be a right with very much value if it is merely the \"right\" to express or experience the emotion of surprise.   Why do you care if somebody else experiences a certain emotion when a particular negative event happens to them? What is it to you if a person is surprised when they experience an event that they didn't expect to happen?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4610.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"1itcez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I believe that people who travel to war-torn and oppressed areas have no right to act surprised when bad things happen to them - CMV Disclaimer:  I'm not saying anyone \"deserves\" anything, only that they don't get to act shocked about it  Every other day, we hear of someone from a western country (usually the US, but that might just be because my news is biased toward the US), that travels to a tumultuous area (Iran, Egypt, etc.) and finds that they somehow aren't immune to getting caught up in it.  Most recently, we see the story of a Norwegian woman in Dubai who was raped, and then jailed when she went to the police.   I am by no means saying that she deserved it, or defending anyone in Dubai, but I don't think we have the right to travel to a country with vastly different cultural beliefs, and then act surprised when we get treated according to those beliefs.    Change my view about this.  Convince me that westerners really do have the right to travel to these kinds of places and expect to be safe the whole time.","c_root_id_A":"cb7y5x6","c_root_id_B":"cb83m8s","created_at_utc_A":1374516930,"created_at_utc_B":1374530324,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"What is the \"right to act surprised?\" Where does this right arise from? Is it a natural right that all humans hold? It's certainly not a legal right. How does one exercise this right? It doesn't seem to be a right with very much value if it is merely the \"right\" to express or experience the emotion of surprise.   Why do you care if somebody else experiences a certain emotion when a particular negative event happens to them? What is it to you if a person is surprised when they experience an event that they didn't expect to happen?","human_ref_B":"1- Bad things happen everywhere -- including the US, even legally. Should that single incident be considered as representative of every person and the entire culture of a country? Would you be willing to make such sweeping generalizations about place if that place was the US (or whereever you come from.)  2- The Westerners who were caught up in Iran were not caught up because of \"culture\" -- they broke specific laws. The American \"hikers\" crossed into Iranian territory illegally, without a visa. Had any Iranian done that, they would still be in Guantanamo, experiencing \"enhanced interrogation\"  3- In ANY country you visit, you are bound by that country's laws -- like it or not. Doesn't matter if youre Japanese visiting America, or American visiting Japan, or German visiting Iran. Doesn't matter if the country is restless or stable. Each country has its laws and you're expected to abide by them, regardless of where you come from. This is established law, not debatable.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13394.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"1itcez","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I believe that people who travel to war-torn and oppressed areas have no right to act surprised when bad things happen to them - CMV Disclaimer:  I'm not saying anyone \"deserves\" anything, only that they don't get to act shocked about it  Every other day, we hear of someone from a western country (usually the US, but that might just be because my news is biased toward the US), that travels to a tumultuous area (Iran, Egypt, etc.) and finds that they somehow aren't immune to getting caught up in it.  Most recently, we see the story of a Norwegian woman in Dubai who was raped, and then jailed when she went to the police.   I am by no means saying that she deserved it, or defending anyone in Dubai, but I don't think we have the right to travel to a country with vastly different cultural beliefs, and then act surprised when we get treated according to those beliefs.    Change my view about this.  Convince me that westerners really do have the right to travel to these kinds of places and expect to be safe the whole time.","c_root_id_A":"cb81p5f","c_root_id_B":"cb83m8s","created_at_utc_A":1374525512,"created_at_utc_B":1374530324,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"What's the acceptable threshold of \"safe\" that defines when someone can expect to be safe? Bad things happen everywhere in the world, so ought people to expect bad things to happen to them no matter where they are?","human_ref_B":"1- Bad things happen everywhere -- including the US, even legally. Should that single incident be considered as representative of every person and the entire culture of a country? Would you be willing to make such sweeping generalizations about place if that place was the US (or whereever you come from.)  2- The Westerners who were caught up in Iran were not caught up because of \"culture\" -- they broke specific laws. The American \"hikers\" crossed into Iranian territory illegally, without a visa. Had any Iranian done that, they would still be in Guantanamo, experiencing \"enhanced interrogation\"  3- In ANY country you visit, you are bound by that country's laws -- like it or not. Doesn't matter if youre Japanese visiting America, or American visiting Japan, or German visiting Iran. Doesn't matter if the country is restless or stable. Each country has its laws and you're expected to abide by them, regardless of where you come from. This is established law, not debatable.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4812.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"7zu6h2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Erik Killmonger in Black Panther is the rightful heir to the Wakandan throne So the specific rules of ritual combat are not completely elaborated on, but we can make some assumptions as to its rules based on the movie:  1) Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne. 2) Neither warrior is allowed to use any of the magic powers (either the Black Panther suit or the special healing herb) 3) External interference to help either warrior is not allowed and disqualifying 4) The first person to \"yield\" or be killed is the loser of the fight.  In the battle Killmonger was clearly the superior warrior and defeated T'Challa, but because of interference from Zuri to save T'Challa's life, Killmonger wasn't able to deliver the killing blow. Further, when T'Challa was thrown off the waterfall, M'Baku of the Jabari tribe interfered to keep him alive. Both of these should have disqualified T'Challa. When T'Challa mortally wounds Killmonger later, it's with the Black Panther herb as well as the Black Panther suit, as that's not the legitimate ritual combat.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duqvwel","c_root_id_B":"duqwqul","created_at_utc_A":1519450525,"created_at_utc_B":1519451923,"score_A":3,"score_B":46,"human_ref_A":"Killmonger was the rightful king. For a little bit. T'Challa userped the throne back in a mini Civil War, not by ritual combat. Ritual combat is apparently not the only way to become king.  Basically, you're not wrong, but Erik is dead so he can't really be king can he?","human_ref_B":"The film establishes that the one competitor wins the ritual combat when the other either dies or surrenders. T'Challa did neither. That's why when T'Challa returns, he tells Killmonger the ritual combat is not over, since he's not dead. There's not a lot he can do about the fact that Killmonger refuses to continue the challenge. Since Killmonger never technically defeats T'Challa per the rules of ritual combat, he's never the rightful king.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1398.0,"score_ratio":15.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"7zu6h2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Erik Killmonger in Black Panther is the rightful heir to the Wakandan throne So the specific rules of ritual combat are not completely elaborated on, but we can make some assumptions as to its rules based on the movie:  1) Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne. 2) Neither warrior is allowed to use any of the magic powers (either the Black Panther suit or the special healing herb) 3) External interference to help either warrior is not allowed and disqualifying 4) The first person to \"yield\" or be killed is the loser of the fight.  In the battle Killmonger was clearly the superior warrior and defeated T'Challa, but because of interference from Zuri to save T'Challa's life, Killmonger wasn't able to deliver the killing blow. Further, when T'Challa was thrown off the waterfall, M'Baku of the Jabari tribe interfered to keep him alive. Both of these should have disqualified T'Challa. When T'Challa mortally wounds Killmonger later, it's with the Black Panther herb as well as the Black Panther suit, as that's not the legitimate ritual combat.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"durhj5z","c_root_id_B":"dur0i4j","created_at_utc_A":1519491655,"created_at_utc_B":1519459516,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think a strong argument could be made for declaring killmonger illegible in any case because his right to challenge derived from his father, who was a traitor. And generally traitors\u2019 children are removed from the succession.","human_ref_B":"So if you didnt want someone to be king, all you would have to do would be to block a single blow in their duel and bam instant disqualification?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32139.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"7zu6h2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Erik Killmonger in Black Panther is the rightful heir to the Wakandan throne So the specific rules of ritual combat are not completely elaborated on, but we can make some assumptions as to its rules based on the movie:  1) Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne. 2) Neither warrior is allowed to use any of the magic powers (either the Black Panther suit or the special healing herb) 3) External interference to help either warrior is not allowed and disqualifying 4) The first person to \"yield\" or be killed is the loser of the fight.  In the battle Killmonger was clearly the superior warrior and defeated T'Challa, but because of interference from Zuri to save T'Challa's life, Killmonger wasn't able to deliver the killing blow. Further, when T'Challa was thrown off the waterfall, M'Baku of the Jabari tribe interfered to keep him alive. Both of these should have disqualified T'Challa. When T'Challa mortally wounds Killmonger later, it's with the Black Panther herb as well as the Black Panther suit, as that's not the legitimate ritual combat.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"durhj5z","c_root_id_B":"duqvwel","created_at_utc_A":1519491655,"created_at_utc_B":1519450525,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think a strong argument could be made for declaring killmonger illegible in any case because his right to challenge derived from his father, who was a traitor. And generally traitors\u2019 children are removed from the succession.","human_ref_B":"Killmonger was the rightful king. For a little bit. T'Challa userped the throne back in a mini Civil War, not by ritual combat. Ritual combat is apparently not the only way to become king.  Basically, you're not wrong, but Erik is dead so he can't really be king can he?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":41130.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"7zu6h2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Erik Killmonger in Black Panther is the rightful heir to the Wakandan throne So the specific rules of ritual combat are not completely elaborated on, but we can make some assumptions as to its rules based on the movie:  1) Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne. 2) Neither warrior is allowed to use any of the magic powers (either the Black Panther suit or the special healing herb) 3) External interference to help either warrior is not allowed and disqualifying 4) The first person to \"yield\" or be killed is the loser of the fight.  In the battle Killmonger was clearly the superior warrior and defeated T'Challa, but because of interference from Zuri to save T'Challa's life, Killmonger wasn't able to deliver the killing blow. Further, when T'Challa was thrown off the waterfall, M'Baku of the Jabari tribe interfered to keep him alive. Both of these should have disqualified T'Challa. When T'Challa mortally wounds Killmonger later, it's with the Black Panther herb as well as the Black Panther suit, as that's not the legitimate ritual combat.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duqvwel","c_root_id_B":"duqyx92","created_at_utc_A":1519450525,"created_at_utc_B":1519456036,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Killmonger was the rightful king. For a little bit. T'Challa userped the throne back in a mini Civil War, not by ritual combat. Ritual combat is apparently not the only way to become king.  Basically, you're not wrong, but Erik is dead so he can't really be king can he?","human_ref_B":"Alternate setup for the challenge:  1. Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne.  2. Combatants enter the field with only melee weapons.  Anyone with the powers of the Black Panther must drink the counteragent first.   3. After the start of the fight, allies of both combatants advance towards the edge of the cliff while brandishing spears. 4. The first person to \"yield\" or be killed is the loser of the fight.  That set of rules matches everything in the movie, and is a set of *rituals which must be performed* instead of a set of *rules which must be followed*.  Under that framework, there's no such thing as \"the spirit of the law\", there is simply a set of actions that must be followed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5511.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"7zu6h2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Erik Killmonger in Black Panther is the rightful heir to the Wakandan throne So the specific rules of ritual combat are not completely elaborated on, but we can make some assumptions as to its rules based on the movie:  1) Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne. 2) Neither warrior is allowed to use any of the magic powers (either the Black Panther suit or the special healing herb) 3) External interference to help either warrior is not allowed and disqualifying 4) The first person to \"yield\" or be killed is the loser of the fight.  In the battle Killmonger was clearly the superior warrior and defeated T'Challa, but because of interference from Zuri to save T'Challa's life, Killmonger wasn't able to deliver the killing blow. Further, when T'Challa was thrown off the waterfall, M'Baku of the Jabari tribe interfered to keep him alive. Both of these should have disqualified T'Challa. When T'Challa mortally wounds Killmonger later, it's with the Black Panther herb as well as the Black Panther suit, as that's not the legitimate ritual combat.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dur0i4j","c_root_id_B":"durq6yl","created_at_utc_A":1519459516,"created_at_utc_B":1519501431,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"So if you didnt want someone to be king, all you would have to do would be to block a single blow in their duel and bam instant disqualification?","human_ref_B":"Zuri\u2019s interference neither declared a *de facto* winner, nor was it grounds for stopping the trial.   Because in either of those cases, the people watching who loved T\u2019Challa, would have physically stopped Killmonger when he carried T\u2019Challa to the waterfall and threw him over. There would be no reason to allow him do that if the challenge was already over or if it\u2019s botched. These people know the rules of the challenge better than the audience, so I think their action (or the lack thereof) is solid evidence that the challenge was still in progress.   Imagine if Killmonger was actually already the victor but he went on to throw T\u2019Challa down the waterfall, and Shuri and Okoye and Nakia did nothing, it would be like if T\u2019Challa tried to kill M\u2019Baku after the latter already yielded, and the other Jabari warriors just stood by and watched. Doesn\u2019t make sense.   The above I know as facts based on the movie. However I don\u2019t really understand why Zuri\u2019s interference would be considered such a non-issue. What I can come up with is that as the referee (he was the only one allowed in the \u201cring\u201d for the second trial), he had the power to pause the trial for a few moments which is what he did by blocking Killmonger\u2019s blow, and as crazy as it sounds, the trial simply resumed when Killmonger killed him.   I just realised I would watch a lot more sports if the players were allowed to murder the referees and still win the game.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":41915.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"7zu6h2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Erik Killmonger in Black Panther is the rightful heir to the Wakandan throne So the specific rules of ritual combat are not completely elaborated on, but we can make some assumptions as to its rules based on the movie:  1) Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne. 2) Neither warrior is allowed to use any of the magic powers (either the Black Panther suit or the special healing herb) 3) External interference to help either warrior is not allowed and disqualifying 4) The first person to \"yield\" or be killed is the loser of the fight.  In the battle Killmonger was clearly the superior warrior and defeated T'Challa, but because of interference from Zuri to save T'Challa's life, Killmonger wasn't able to deliver the killing blow. Further, when T'Challa was thrown off the waterfall, M'Baku of the Jabari tribe interfered to keep him alive. Both of these should have disqualified T'Challa. When T'Challa mortally wounds Killmonger later, it's with the Black Panther herb as well as the Black Panther suit, as that's not the legitimate ritual combat.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duqvwel","c_root_id_B":"dur0i4j","created_at_utc_A":1519450525,"created_at_utc_B":1519459516,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Killmonger was the rightful king. For a little bit. T'Challa userped the throne back in a mini Civil War, not by ritual combat. Ritual combat is apparently not the only way to become king.  Basically, you're not wrong, but Erik is dead so he can't really be king can he?","human_ref_B":"So if you didnt want someone to be king, all you would have to do would be to block a single blow in their duel and bam instant disqualification?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8991.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"7zu6h2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Erik Killmonger in Black Panther is the rightful heir to the Wakandan throne So the specific rules of ritual combat are not completely elaborated on, but we can make some assumptions as to its rules based on the movie:  1) Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne. 2) Neither warrior is allowed to use any of the magic powers (either the Black Panther suit or the special healing herb) 3) External interference to help either warrior is not allowed and disqualifying 4) The first person to \"yield\" or be killed is the loser of the fight.  In the battle Killmonger was clearly the superior warrior and defeated T'Challa, but because of interference from Zuri to save T'Challa's life, Killmonger wasn't able to deliver the killing blow. Further, when T'Challa was thrown off the waterfall, M'Baku of the Jabari tribe interfered to keep him alive. Both of these should have disqualified T'Challa. When T'Challa mortally wounds Killmonger later, it's with the Black Panther herb as well as the Black Panther suit, as that's not the legitimate ritual combat.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duqvwel","c_root_id_B":"durq6yl","created_at_utc_A":1519450525,"created_at_utc_B":1519501431,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Killmonger was the rightful king. For a little bit. T'Challa userped the throne back in a mini Civil War, not by ritual combat. Ritual combat is apparently not the only way to become king.  Basically, you're not wrong, but Erik is dead so he can't really be king can he?","human_ref_B":"Zuri\u2019s interference neither declared a *de facto* winner, nor was it grounds for stopping the trial.   Because in either of those cases, the people watching who loved T\u2019Challa, would have physically stopped Killmonger when he carried T\u2019Challa to the waterfall and threw him over. There would be no reason to allow him do that if the challenge was already over or if it\u2019s botched. These people know the rules of the challenge better than the audience, so I think their action (or the lack thereof) is solid evidence that the challenge was still in progress.   Imagine if Killmonger was actually already the victor but he went on to throw T\u2019Challa down the waterfall, and Shuri and Okoye and Nakia did nothing, it would be like if T\u2019Challa tried to kill M\u2019Baku after the latter already yielded, and the other Jabari warriors just stood by and watched. Doesn\u2019t make sense.   The above I know as facts based on the movie. However I don\u2019t really understand why Zuri\u2019s interference would be considered such a non-issue. What I can come up with is that as the referee (he was the only one allowed in the \u201cring\u201d for the second trial), he had the power to pause the trial for a few moments which is what he did by blocking Killmonger\u2019s blow, and as crazy as it sounds, the trial simply resumed when Killmonger killed him.   I just realised I would watch a lot more sports if the players were allowed to murder the referees and still win the game.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":50906.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"7zu6h2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Erik Killmonger in Black Panther is the rightful heir to the Wakandan throne So the specific rules of ritual combat are not completely elaborated on, but we can make some assumptions as to its rules based on the movie:  1) Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne. 2) Neither warrior is allowed to use any of the magic powers (either the Black Panther suit or the special healing herb) 3) External interference to help either warrior is not allowed and disqualifying 4) The first person to \"yield\" or be killed is the loser of the fight.  In the battle Killmonger was clearly the superior warrior and defeated T'Challa, but because of interference from Zuri to save T'Challa's life, Killmonger wasn't able to deliver the killing blow. Further, when T'Challa was thrown off the waterfall, M'Baku of the Jabari tribe interfered to keep him alive. Both of these should have disqualified T'Challa. When T'Challa mortally wounds Killmonger later, it's with the Black Panther herb as well as the Black Panther suit, as that's not the legitimate ritual combat.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"durjk3s","c_root_id_B":"durq6yl","created_at_utc_A":1519493946,"created_at_utc_B":1519501431,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The reason he was not the rightful king is because during the challenge the person being defeated must be given the choice of yielding or death, of which Prince T\u2019Chala was not given","human_ref_B":"Zuri\u2019s interference neither declared a *de facto* winner, nor was it grounds for stopping the trial.   Because in either of those cases, the people watching who loved T\u2019Challa, would have physically stopped Killmonger when he carried T\u2019Challa to the waterfall and threw him over. There would be no reason to allow him do that if the challenge was already over or if it\u2019s botched. These people know the rules of the challenge better than the audience, so I think their action (or the lack thereof) is solid evidence that the challenge was still in progress.   Imagine if Killmonger was actually already the victor but he went on to throw T\u2019Challa down the waterfall, and Shuri and Okoye and Nakia did nothing, it would be like if T\u2019Challa tried to kill M\u2019Baku after the latter already yielded, and the other Jabari warriors just stood by and watched. Doesn\u2019t make sense.   The above I know as facts based on the movie. However I don\u2019t really understand why Zuri\u2019s interference would be considered such a non-issue. What I can come up with is that as the referee (he was the only one allowed in the \u201cring\u201d for the second trial), he had the power to pause the trial for a few moments which is what he did by blocking Killmonger\u2019s blow, and as crazy as it sounds, the trial simply resumed when Killmonger killed him.   I just realised I would watch a lot more sports if the players were allowed to murder the referees and still win the game.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7485.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"317qci","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Change my view thatUber has done and will continue to do much more than Tesla in terms of reducing carbon footprint I'm not a fan of either Uber or Tesla, but when a Tesla fan told me they are basically saving the planet, I was skeptical for a number of reasons (among them that other car companies were deploying electric vehicles as well, and in greater numbers), but recently I thought of the number of potential vehicles Uber takes off the road combined with their rapid adoption would probably make a far greater impact on \"saving the planet\" than Tesla. I'm curious to see what figures there are to compare if there are any available, but basically this is what I tentatively believe unless there are good arguments or evidence for the opposite. _____   > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cpz2zna","c_root_id_B":"cpz3042","created_at_utc_A":1427997311,"created_at_utc_B":1427997342,"score_A":3,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"How is uber taking cars off the road?","human_ref_B":"are you assuming that no one would ever take a taxi or other public transportation if it wasnt for Uber?  If anything dont you have thousands of people who would have been at home, now driving aimlessly from one spot to another? and then there is the extra idle time in which they are just cruising?  as oppposed to people driving themselves? which would recuce idle time since most of us dont just cruise.  So how have they helped?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"317qci","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Change my view thatUber has done and will continue to do much more than Tesla in terms of reducing carbon footprint I'm not a fan of either Uber or Tesla, but when a Tesla fan told me they are basically saving the planet, I was skeptical for a number of reasons (among them that other car companies were deploying electric vehicles as well, and in greater numbers), but recently I thought of the number of potential vehicles Uber takes off the road combined with their rapid adoption would probably make a far greater impact on \"saving the planet\" than Tesla. I'm curious to see what figures there are to compare if there are any available, but basically this is what I tentatively believe unless there are good arguments or evidence for the opposite. _____   > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cpz2zna","c_root_id_B":"cpz3tj5","created_at_utc_A":1427997311,"created_at_utc_B":1427998710,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"How is uber taking cars off the road?","human_ref_B":"I see where you're coming from, but I respectfully, totally, disagree. First, let's look at Uber, which I think is a great idea. But, Uber actually increases the overall amount that people are driving. Uber is not for carpooling. It only picks up one person or group at a time; a privately owned car would do the same. But, in addition to the privately owned car, instead of just going to the garage and starting to drive, you have to call someone, who is not where you are, to come to your location and pick you up. If you need to travel ten miles, but the Uber driver is five miles away when you call him, the total mileage of the trip is now fifteen instead of ten miles.  With regard to Tesla, why do you think other companies are now producing so many electric cars? Even if they end up being a bust, which I don't think will happen, they have contributed to the \"green\" car market, causing other companies to compete with even greener cars. It's an environmental arms race. Also, besides the very real successes Tesla has already had, they displayed their altruism by making all of their patents public and other companies are now using them. Maybe their intentions were more selfish, but you can't argue about the fact that there is real, measurable, positive change as a result of their actions.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1399.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"auehpe","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: \"Everyone has a bias\" is not a valid defense of news media bias Much of news media that can be accessed online is rich in emotional headlines or features story selection that to some degree supports the narrative that the publication is pushing. I think that publications do this because it is easier to profit in the current political climate by building a story or worldview that can categorize the valence of each event in a way that does not challenge that worldview. Generally when I have this point brought up either online or in person, it is common for people to counter with some variation of \"it's impossible not to have a bias\" or \"everyone has a bias, you just need to be aware of it\". When you think about it, this is a pretty flimsy defense and I think it functions as a loophole for people to avoid have to try to be objective. To make an analogy, when it comes to the news media, it's like if you had a surgeon that made the wrong cut and they told you that \"everybody makes mistakes\" without trying to fix anything, in the sense that, while it may be true, your job is supposed to be providing this service while making the least amount of mistakes possible, which is why you are paid to do it and not a layman.","c_root_id_A":"eh7mjc1","c_root_id_B":"eh7ncyk","created_at_utc_A":1551054167,"created_at_utc_B":1551054884,"score_A":7,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"The problem with changing your view here is that it's unclear what news media you are referring to and how the defense of \"everybody has bias\" is being used. \"Everyone has bias\" is used in a number of circumstances, from the bad (defending outright propaganda) to the reasonable (pointing out that factual coverage that presents something critically is inevitable).  So let me describe a scenario in which I see \"Everything is biased\" used in a reasonable fashion. A politician does something dumb; they say \"Giraffes are a drain on the US economy and I'd personally kill them on sight\" or something. There's really no way to make that position reasonable, and News Corporation X posts an article about the story which, obviously, makes the politician look rather silly.  Person Y says \"this is an example of what's wrong with the media! They shouldn't be biased by posting articles like this, they should present both sides of the story and let the reader decide!\" In this situation, it's reasonable for person Z to say \"Everyone is biased; there is no non-biased way to report on this story, as defending the politician is itself an act of bias.\"  In this scenario, Person Y is fundamentally wrong; they believe in, or at least pretend to believe in, a world in which there is some factual, objective way to present information without bias, possibly because that position means less critical coverage of the politician they like. But that simply cannot exist; you cannot provide apolitical coverage of political events, unbiased presentations of events that naturally cause bias. You can only choose to what degree you want to convey that bias and how to do so.  So when you say something like  > When you think about it, this is a pretty flimsy defense and I think it functions as a loophole for people to avoid have to try to be objective  It makes me think that you also believe in a world where there's a theoretical \"perfect\" news station that can report objectively and without bias, but I disagree with that; that's just not how conveying information works on a fundamental level. It isn't just that factual statements can be presented in a biased way, it's that *every way you can present factual statements is biased.*","human_ref_B":"I do agree that media should strive to stay objective. In an ideal world, all media would be 100% objective and *we,* the readers, would be able to trust most media outlets to stay nonpartisan. But, since the media is made out of people, not machines, there *will* be bias no matter what we do. Bias is a part of life, whether it's out in the open or unconscious. In essence, though, I agree that bias in the media shouldn't be swept under the rug with a single, wide, encompassing motion.   However, a lot of people mistake bias in the media for their own bias. They'll read an article and, thinking that it originates from a platform that opposes their own political views, dismiss it as biased. In many cases, however that's just their own bias at work.    https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/09\/26\/upshot\/biased-news-media-or-biased-readers-an-experiment-on-trust.html  This is an objective article that does nothing more than summarize the results of quite an interesting blind study on how people's own biases influence their view of bias in the media.   >The results, which have been published by Gallup and Knight, show that the blinded group is significantly more trusting of the news content.   >People identifying with the Republican Party who read media perceived as left-leaning like The New York Times and Vox without knowing where it came from rated it as more trustworthy than the nonblinded group did.  >Similarly, those identifying with the Democratic Party who read media perceived as right-leaning like Fox News rated it higher when they did not know the source.  >Not surprisingly, those with more extreme political views tend to provide more biased ratings of news. Those who described their political views as very liberal or very conservative exhibited large bias across 43 percent of the articles they rated, whereas those who described their views as moderate exhibited bias just 31 percent of the time. Likewise, those who leaned toward one party but did not fully identify with it exhibited about the same bias as the moderates.  >Strikingly, those with the strongest distrust of the news media provide the most biased ratings.  >Those who say they don\u2019t trust the news media at all provided biased ratings 47 percent of the time, whereas those who trust the news media \u201ca fair amount\u201d provided ratings with large bias just 30 percent of the time.  There is a lot more to it and I suggest you read the entire article--it's not that long.   My point being: if you're distrustful of media, you're around 45% more likely to mislabel a non-biased article as biased.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":717.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"auehpe","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: \"Everyone has a bias\" is not a valid defense of news media bias Much of news media that can be accessed online is rich in emotional headlines or features story selection that to some degree supports the narrative that the publication is pushing. I think that publications do this because it is easier to profit in the current political climate by building a story or worldview that can categorize the valence of each event in a way that does not challenge that worldview. Generally when I have this point brought up either online or in person, it is common for people to counter with some variation of \"it's impossible not to have a bias\" or \"everyone has a bias, you just need to be aware of it\". When you think about it, this is a pretty flimsy defense and I think it functions as a loophole for people to avoid have to try to be objective. To make an analogy, when it comes to the news media, it's like if you had a surgeon that made the wrong cut and they told you that \"everybody makes mistakes\" without trying to fix anything, in the sense that, while it may be true, your job is supposed to be providing this service while making the least amount of mistakes possible, which is why you are paid to do it and not a layman.","c_root_id_A":"eh7ov6x","c_root_id_B":"eh7oe63","created_at_utc_A":1551056192,"created_at_utc_B":1551055782,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If a heart surgeon makes the wrong cut, it's a mistake and they apologize to you. But if you ask a heart surgeon to perform brain surgery, they would refuse. They only perform heart surgeries. You go to them for heart surgeries, and you go to the brain surgeon for brain surgeries. No surgeon can do everything. Medicine has simply become far to advanced for a general surgeon to do everything like in the old days.  The same thing applies to the news media. If they incorrectly report the facts of a story, it's a mistake and they issue a retraction. But if you ask a conservative news source like Fox News to report from a \"fair and balanced perspective\" it's not going to happen. They only present conservative slanting news stories. If you want the liberal approach, flip over to MSNBC. If you want to be a little more highbrow, read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. But no news agency can do everything. Journalism has long progressed past the days of a single unbiased source where people presented both sides. And the irony is that even back then, they had biases. But people simply weren't skilled at critical thinking enough to notice.   Mistakes are mistakes. But bias is a specialization. It's something you pick up by doing your own thinking and developing your own perspective. Bias is not a mistake. It can cause you to make mistakes, but it's not a mistake on it's own.  The only criticism I would share is that some news sources lie and claim they have no bias (e.g., Fox News' \"Fair and Balanced\" tagline). A few people can recognize bias, but most people are blind to it, especially when it fits their worldview. As such, it's an unfair and misleading tagline. But the response is not to further pretend there is no bias. It's to be much more transparent about it. It's to encourage people to listen to a wide variety of people with a wide variety of perspectives, not pretend they can get all they need from a single one stop shop. The latter approach is a lot more work, but it's worth it.","human_ref_B":"It's not that everyone occasionally slips up and puts bias into our neutral positions, it's that everyone's position is inherently subjective, or \"biased\".   There is no such thing as value-neutral political commentary. The ones that you think of as such, are simply the ones that conform to your own biases.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":410.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"auehpe","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: \"Everyone has a bias\" is not a valid defense of news media bias Much of news media that can be accessed online is rich in emotional headlines or features story selection that to some degree supports the narrative that the publication is pushing. I think that publications do this because it is easier to profit in the current political climate by building a story or worldview that can categorize the valence of each event in a way that does not challenge that worldview. Generally when I have this point brought up either online or in person, it is common for people to counter with some variation of \"it's impossible not to have a bias\" or \"everyone has a bias, you just need to be aware of it\". When you think about it, this is a pretty flimsy defense and I think it functions as a loophole for people to avoid have to try to be objective. To make an analogy, when it comes to the news media, it's like if you had a surgeon that made the wrong cut and they told you that \"everybody makes mistakes\" without trying to fix anything, in the sense that, while it may be true, your job is supposed to be providing this service while making the least amount of mistakes possible, which is why you are paid to do it and not a layman.","c_root_id_A":"eh7oe63","c_root_id_B":"eh8ndrc","created_at_utc_A":1551055782,"created_at_utc_B":1551097196,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's not that everyone occasionally slips up and puts bias into our neutral positions, it's that everyone's position is inherently subjective, or \"biased\".   There is no such thing as value-neutral political commentary. The ones that you think of as such, are simply the ones that conform to your own biases.","human_ref_B":"I'm a media hound.  I read dozens of news sources and multiple articles on the same issue from multiple sources as a simple matter of course.  And that is what I would suggest you do if you want to understand media bias.  Pick a topic you are interested in, and then read every article that comes out on that topic from six different news sources over the course of a couple of months.  What you will find is as follows:  1. Some sources are a lot better than others, but no one is perfect and even a good news source can have a pretty badly biased article; 2. Some \"bias\" probably flows from the reporter not really understanding the topic they are reporting on and the significance of some of the key facts.  When you have a publication with a slant they make sure the key facts to support it are there, but when a good news source tries to be fairly neutral and misses a key fact you question whether it was simply due to a lack of understanding. 3. The most egregious bias from an honest news source is often the omission of one or two key facts that change the overall perception of the story. 4. Outright lies happen, but they are rare. 5. Some news sources will seem like they are doing a good job, but for some reason all their mistakes and omissions go in the same direction (the New York Times for example).   6. Today the single biggest problem is with anonymous sources and while this is a complex issue and sometimes they are worthy of consideration I think the field of journalism needs a set of ethical rules for how these sources should be reported on (really I think they should in almost all circumstances not be reported on). 7. It is extremely hard to find anyone who plays it completely straight without a slant and that isn't a bad thing if they are honest with their reporting and give you the information you need.  Often the slant is of great assistance to let the reader see how information is relevant.  Now... your view seems to be that bias is bad reporting, and papers should be blamed for bad reporting.  But I think that people are responsible for informing themselves about what is happening in their world and part of that is getting the story from a few different sides.  For people to simply abdicate responsibility for critical thinking and say that because they read a \"news\" article someone posted on facebook they are entitled to rely on that as the gospel truth or blame the \"news\" source is absurd.  There has to be some degree of personal responsibility here, and all you really need to do is read a few articles from a few news sources and you will have a pretty good picture of the actual event in question and its significance to all sides of a debate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":41414.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"rfzi2q","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: It's perfectly acceptable to stop being nice to someone who is\/starts treating you horribly So my roommate has been treating me horribly for awhile, she has thrown my freezer food outside, smashed my electronics, thrown my shoes over the neighbors fence, stolen stuff like my water jugg ect.   Almost everyday she does something horrible to me. It use to be she'd get drunk blame me for something I didn't do (like taking her phone when she or one of her friends moved it and she can't immediately find it) throw a fit but apologize and try to make it right. But the whole apologizing and trying to make it right part went by the wayside a bit ago and she started going out of her way to hurt me for reasons I still don't fucking understand and surprise surprise I stopped being nice to her and giving her any consideration (like being quiet in the morning or letting her use my stuff that would be reasonable for a roommate to use) this of course made her act like more of a bitch and act like I was being the unreasonable one.  My response is perfectly acceptable but more to the point of this CMV, how many \"nice guy TM\" accusations from girls is this kind insane shit? Like if someone is nice to them and you're a bitch to them yeah they are going to get upset and do something not nice depending on how much of a bitch you are they might even fully snap and do something criminal, while I don't think a criminal response is acceptable pretty much anything legal that's not nice is. It doesn't make someone a \"Nice guy TM\" if they were nice and you're mean to them and they stop being nice, it makes them a fucking human being who get understandably upset when they are trying to be nice to someone who ends up just shitting all over them.   If a guy holds the door open once, asks you out and you politely decline and they throw a fit that's one thing but I don't think that kind of circumstance is the reality of the situation in the majority of cases. I think most of them is the guy trying to be nice, the girl shitting on them and then when they react like a human would the girl then shits on them some more by using their being upset as kind of bullshit proof they were secretly an asshole... it's perfectly acceptable to be an asshole to someone who has treated you like shit it doesn't mean you're not a nice person nor does it mean you weren't genuinely trying to be nice.","c_root_id_A":"hohb67c","c_root_id_B":"hoh56ug","created_at_utc_A":1639462216,"created_at_utc_B":1639458571,"score_A":23,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"The way you are generalizing your current situation with your roommate to male\/female interactions, and the way you are doing it leads me to conclude there is more to this story than is being shared.  Not going to comment on it for that reason beyond this.  Keep in mind that someone trying to be nice doesn't mean what they did actually was.","human_ref_B":"Firstly.       Punctuate. Not punctuating is rude to the readers.   Secondly,         Someone being abusive is grounds to set boundaries. So, set boundaries. You can\u2019t control that person. Why be upset that they aren\u2019t meeting your expectations?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3645.0,"score_ratio":1.9166666667}
+{"post_id":"rfzi2q","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: It's perfectly acceptable to stop being nice to someone who is\/starts treating you horribly So my roommate has been treating me horribly for awhile, she has thrown my freezer food outside, smashed my electronics, thrown my shoes over the neighbors fence, stolen stuff like my water jugg ect.   Almost everyday she does something horrible to me. It use to be she'd get drunk blame me for something I didn't do (like taking her phone when she or one of her friends moved it and she can't immediately find it) throw a fit but apologize and try to make it right. But the whole apologizing and trying to make it right part went by the wayside a bit ago and she started going out of her way to hurt me for reasons I still don't fucking understand and surprise surprise I stopped being nice to her and giving her any consideration (like being quiet in the morning or letting her use my stuff that would be reasonable for a roommate to use) this of course made her act like more of a bitch and act like I was being the unreasonable one.  My response is perfectly acceptable but more to the point of this CMV, how many \"nice guy TM\" accusations from girls is this kind insane shit? Like if someone is nice to them and you're a bitch to them yeah they are going to get upset and do something not nice depending on how much of a bitch you are they might even fully snap and do something criminal, while I don't think a criminal response is acceptable pretty much anything legal that's not nice is. It doesn't make someone a \"Nice guy TM\" if they were nice and you're mean to them and they stop being nice, it makes them a fucking human being who get understandably upset when they are trying to be nice to someone who ends up just shitting all over them.   If a guy holds the door open once, asks you out and you politely decline and they throw a fit that's one thing but I don't think that kind of circumstance is the reality of the situation in the majority of cases. I think most of them is the guy trying to be nice, the girl shitting on them and then when they react like a human would the girl then shits on them some more by using their being upset as kind of bullshit proof they were secretly an asshole... it's perfectly acceptable to be an asshole to someone who has treated you like shit it doesn't mean you're not a nice person nor does it mean you weren't genuinely trying to be nice.","c_root_id_A":"hoh3p8h","c_root_id_B":"hohb67c","created_at_utc_A":1639457750,"created_at_utc_B":1639462216,"score_A":7,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":">I think most of them is the guy trying to be nice, the girl shitting on them and then when they react like a human would the girl then shits on them some more by using their being upset as kind of bullshit proof they were secretly an asshole...  Just check out r\/niceguys, it's entry after entry of women rejecting men in perfectly reasonable ways, or sometimes just not even rejecting them but just not responding quickly enough for their liking, and being met with ludicrous displays of hostility and entitlement in return.","human_ref_B":"The way you are generalizing your current situation with your roommate to male\/female interactions, and the way you are doing it leads me to conclude there is more to this story than is being shared.  Not going to comment on it for that reason beyond this.  Keep in mind that someone trying to be nice doesn't mean what they did actually was.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4466.0,"score_ratio":3.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"rfzi2q","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: It's perfectly acceptable to stop being nice to someone who is\/starts treating you horribly So my roommate has been treating me horribly for awhile, she has thrown my freezer food outside, smashed my electronics, thrown my shoes over the neighbors fence, stolen stuff like my water jugg ect.   Almost everyday she does something horrible to me. It use to be she'd get drunk blame me for something I didn't do (like taking her phone when she or one of her friends moved it and she can't immediately find it) throw a fit but apologize and try to make it right. But the whole apologizing and trying to make it right part went by the wayside a bit ago and she started going out of her way to hurt me for reasons I still don't fucking understand and surprise surprise I stopped being nice to her and giving her any consideration (like being quiet in the morning or letting her use my stuff that would be reasonable for a roommate to use) this of course made her act like more of a bitch and act like I was being the unreasonable one.  My response is perfectly acceptable but more to the point of this CMV, how many \"nice guy TM\" accusations from girls is this kind insane shit? Like if someone is nice to them and you're a bitch to them yeah they are going to get upset and do something not nice depending on how much of a bitch you are they might even fully snap and do something criminal, while I don't think a criminal response is acceptable pretty much anything legal that's not nice is. It doesn't make someone a \"Nice guy TM\" if they were nice and you're mean to them and they stop being nice, it makes them a fucking human being who get understandably upset when they are trying to be nice to someone who ends up just shitting all over them.   If a guy holds the door open once, asks you out and you politely decline and they throw a fit that's one thing but I don't think that kind of circumstance is the reality of the situation in the majority of cases. I think most of them is the guy trying to be nice, the girl shitting on them and then when they react like a human would the girl then shits on them some more by using their being upset as kind of bullshit proof they were secretly an asshole... it's perfectly acceptable to be an asshole to someone who has treated you like shit it doesn't mean you're not a nice person nor does it mean you weren't genuinely trying to be nice.","c_root_id_A":"hoh3p8h","c_root_id_B":"hoh56ug","created_at_utc_A":1639457750,"created_at_utc_B":1639458571,"score_A":7,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":">I think most of them is the guy trying to be nice, the girl shitting on them and then when they react like a human would the girl then shits on them some more by using their being upset as kind of bullshit proof they were secretly an asshole...  Just check out r\/niceguys, it's entry after entry of women rejecting men in perfectly reasonable ways, or sometimes just not even rejecting them but just not responding quickly enough for their liking, and being met with ludicrous displays of hostility and entitlement in return.","human_ref_B":"Firstly.       Punctuate. Not punctuating is rude to the readers.   Secondly,         Someone being abusive is grounds to set boundaries. So, set boundaries. You can\u2019t control that person. Why be upset that they aren\u2019t meeting your expectations?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":821.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"9opx4j","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful. I personally have not served in the military, but both my grandfathers have served, my dad's dad was a military police officer, and my mom's grandfather was a navy officer during the korean war. my dad's brother is a retired chief of police. and some of my friends from high school are serving right now.  That being said, most people who go against the national anthem protest, have never served, not only that, but they act like players are doing this for no reason. like the police brutality, and racism in our country doesn't exist.   Ignorance is bliss, and players aren't gonna stop because your feelings are hurt.   CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful to the military, or veterans.","c_root_id_A":"e7vtgtq","c_root_id_B":"e7w5hzw","created_at_utc_A":1539713083,"created_at_utc_B":1539722398,"score_A":6,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">I personally have not served in the military, but both my grandfathers have served, my dad's dad was a military police officer, and my mom's grandfather was a navy officer during the korean war. my dad's brother is a retired chief of police. and some of my friends from high school are serving right now.      Have you asked their opinion regarding people who kneel during the national athem? Otherwise I do not understand why this is a relevant point.      >That being said, most people who go against the national anthem protest, have never served, not only that, but they act like players are doing this for no reason. like the police brutality, and racism in our country doesn't exist.      I don't completely agree with this point. I don't think people believe that players kneel for no reason. More so the fact that kneeling during the National Anthem does not seem to be a clear indication that you are protesting police brutality.      Now - if the players were marching in front of the Ferguson police station, that sends a pretty clear message.","human_ref_B":"This topic, like many topics, ultimately comes down to where offense can\/should originate from.  More to the point, should people be offended by an action (regardless of the intention behind it) or by the intention behind the action (regardless of the despicableness of the action).  It's been my experience that people generally tend to judge themselves and their friends\/like-minded people by their intentions and strangers\/others by their actions.  And that can lead to some pretty hypocritical behavior on both sides.  Take a look at the debate that periodically crops up surrounding the Confederate Battle Flag.  Some people view it as a symbol of independence, regional heritage, family pride, etc., which are all noble enough things to celebrate (i.e. noble intention behind the action).  Other people view the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of slavery, of divisiveness within the Union of the United States, and of a failed rebellion (despicableness of the action).  And funnily enough, most of the people that want to condemn kneelers for their action's inherent disrespect defend the Confederate flag on the basis of intention.  And many of the people that defend the kneelers because of the intentions condemn the Confederate flag on it's inherent symbolism.  I haven't come to a position on this discrepancy that I'm satisfied with, but I figured I'd start talking and see how others viewed it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9315.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"9opx4j","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful. I personally have not served in the military, but both my grandfathers have served, my dad's dad was a military police officer, and my mom's grandfather was a navy officer during the korean war. my dad's brother is a retired chief of police. and some of my friends from high school are serving right now.  That being said, most people who go against the national anthem protest, have never served, not only that, but they act like players are doing this for no reason. like the police brutality, and racism in our country doesn't exist.   Ignorance is bliss, and players aren't gonna stop because your feelings are hurt.   CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful to the military, or veterans.","c_root_id_A":"e7vt6xe","c_root_id_B":"e7w5hzw","created_at_utc_A":1539712867,"created_at_utc_B":1539722398,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I personally agree with you, but you can also place it in a greater context of what it means to be disrespectful.    Disrespect is a combination of intention and perception.  Even if you intend no disrespect, it can be valid for someone to perceive a symbol or phrase or action as disrespectful.    Especially with social media as it is, there are cases where perception is essentially the only thing that matters.  Roseanne Barr can try to explain her tweet away all day and may not have meant anything offensive by it, but perception is really all that matters in the public eye.  People felt disrespected (and for good reason, not trying to make that an issue), so intention didn't matter, or people assumed they knew what her intent was, no matter what she said.    It's perfectly valid to say that no disrespect is intended and that you personally (as I personally) feel it isn't disrespectful, but our common perception isn't objectively correct.  If there are members of the military that feel disrespected, it's presumptuous to assume that they're wrong by some objective standard.","human_ref_B":"This topic, like many topics, ultimately comes down to where offense can\/should originate from.  More to the point, should people be offended by an action (regardless of the intention behind it) or by the intention behind the action (regardless of the despicableness of the action).  It's been my experience that people generally tend to judge themselves and their friends\/like-minded people by their intentions and strangers\/others by their actions.  And that can lead to some pretty hypocritical behavior on both sides.  Take a look at the debate that periodically crops up surrounding the Confederate Battle Flag.  Some people view it as a symbol of independence, regional heritage, family pride, etc., which are all noble enough things to celebrate (i.e. noble intention behind the action).  Other people view the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of slavery, of divisiveness within the Union of the United States, and of a failed rebellion (despicableness of the action).  And funnily enough, most of the people that want to condemn kneelers for their action's inherent disrespect defend the Confederate flag on the basis of intention.  And many of the people that defend the kneelers because of the intentions condemn the Confederate flag on it's inherent symbolism.  I haven't come to a position on this discrepancy that I'm satisfied with, but I figured I'd start talking and see how others viewed it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9531.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
+{"post_id":"9opx4j","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful. I personally have not served in the military, but both my grandfathers have served, my dad's dad was a military police officer, and my mom's grandfather was a navy officer during the korean war. my dad's brother is a retired chief of police. and some of my friends from high school are serving right now.  That being said, most people who go against the national anthem protest, have never served, not only that, but they act like players are doing this for no reason. like the police brutality, and racism in our country doesn't exist.   Ignorance is bliss, and players aren't gonna stop because your feelings are hurt.   CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful to the military, or veterans.","c_root_id_A":"e7w5hzw","c_root_id_B":"e7vye3o","created_at_utc_A":1539722398,"created_at_utc_B":1539716909,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This topic, like many topics, ultimately comes down to where offense can\/should originate from.  More to the point, should people be offended by an action (regardless of the intention behind it) or by the intention behind the action (regardless of the despicableness of the action).  It's been my experience that people generally tend to judge themselves and their friends\/like-minded people by their intentions and strangers\/others by their actions.  And that can lead to some pretty hypocritical behavior on both sides.  Take a look at the debate that periodically crops up surrounding the Confederate Battle Flag.  Some people view it as a symbol of independence, regional heritage, family pride, etc., which are all noble enough things to celebrate (i.e. noble intention behind the action).  Other people view the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of slavery, of divisiveness within the Union of the United States, and of a failed rebellion (despicableness of the action).  And funnily enough, most of the people that want to condemn kneelers for their action's inherent disrespect defend the Confederate flag on the basis of intention.  And many of the people that defend the kneelers because of the intentions condemn the Confederate flag on it's inherent symbolism.  I haven't come to a position on this discrepancy that I'm satisfied with, but I figured I'd start talking and see how others viewed it.","human_ref_B":"If I go to Japan and I deliberately don't abide to their customs that would actually be alright elsewhere would I be disrespectful?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5489.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
+{"post_id":"9opx4j","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful. I personally have not served in the military, but both my grandfathers have served, my dad's dad was a military police officer, and my mom's grandfather was a navy officer during the korean war. my dad's brother is a retired chief of police. and some of my friends from high school are serving right now.  That being said, most people who go against the national anthem protest, have never served, not only that, but they act like players are doing this for no reason. like the police brutality, and racism in our country doesn't exist.   Ignorance is bliss, and players aren't gonna stop because your feelings are hurt.   CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful to the military, or veterans.","c_root_id_A":"e7w5hzw","c_root_id_B":"e7vwbhf","created_at_utc_A":1539722398,"created_at_utc_B":1539715310,"score_A":11,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This topic, like many topics, ultimately comes down to where offense can\/should originate from.  More to the point, should people be offended by an action (regardless of the intention behind it) or by the intention behind the action (regardless of the despicableness of the action).  It's been my experience that people generally tend to judge themselves and their friends\/like-minded people by their intentions and strangers\/others by their actions.  And that can lead to some pretty hypocritical behavior on both sides.  Take a look at the debate that periodically crops up surrounding the Confederate Battle Flag.  Some people view it as a symbol of independence, regional heritage, family pride, etc., which are all noble enough things to celebrate (i.e. noble intention behind the action).  Other people view the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of slavery, of divisiveness within the Union of the United States, and of a failed rebellion (despicableness of the action).  And funnily enough, most of the people that want to condemn kneelers for their action's inherent disrespect defend the Confederate flag on the basis of intention.  And many of the people that defend the kneelers because of the intentions condemn the Confederate flag on it's inherent symbolism.  I haven't come to a position on this discrepancy that I'm satisfied with, but I figured I'd start talking and see how others viewed it.","human_ref_B":"I personally think it's distasteful but it's their right to do what they want. Tbh I can't understand why people just can't accept the fact that there would be always different opinions and while we may not agree with it we don't need to be disrespectful or spout hate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7088.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
+{"post_id":"9opx4j","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful. I personally have not served in the military, but both my grandfathers have served, my dad's dad was a military police officer, and my mom's grandfather was a navy officer during the korean war. my dad's brother is a retired chief of police. and some of my friends from high school are serving right now.  That being said, most people who go against the national anthem protest, have never served, not only that, but they act like players are doing this for no reason. like the police brutality, and racism in our country doesn't exist.   Ignorance is bliss, and players aren't gonna stop because your feelings are hurt.   CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful to the military, or veterans.","c_root_id_A":"e7vt6xe","c_root_id_B":"e7vtgtq","created_at_utc_A":1539712867,"created_at_utc_B":1539713083,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I personally agree with you, but you can also place it in a greater context of what it means to be disrespectful.    Disrespect is a combination of intention and perception.  Even if you intend no disrespect, it can be valid for someone to perceive a symbol or phrase or action as disrespectful.    Especially with social media as it is, there are cases where perception is essentially the only thing that matters.  Roseanne Barr can try to explain her tweet away all day and may not have meant anything offensive by it, but perception is really all that matters in the public eye.  People felt disrespected (and for good reason, not trying to make that an issue), so intention didn't matter, or people assumed they knew what her intent was, no matter what she said.    It's perfectly valid to say that no disrespect is intended and that you personally (as I personally) feel it isn't disrespectful, but our common perception isn't objectively correct.  If there are members of the military that feel disrespected, it's presumptuous to assume that they're wrong by some objective standard.","human_ref_B":">I personally have not served in the military, but both my grandfathers have served, my dad's dad was a military police officer, and my mom's grandfather was a navy officer during the korean war. my dad's brother is a retired chief of police. and some of my friends from high school are serving right now.      Have you asked their opinion regarding people who kneel during the national athem? Otherwise I do not understand why this is a relevant point.      >That being said, most people who go against the national anthem protest, have never served, not only that, but they act like players are doing this for no reason. like the police brutality, and racism in our country doesn't exist.      I don't completely agree with this point. I don't think people believe that players kneel for no reason. More so the fact that kneeling during the National Anthem does not seem to be a clear indication that you are protesting police brutality.      Now - if the players were marching in front of the Ferguson police station, that sends a pretty clear message.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":216.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"9opx4j","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful. I personally have not served in the military, but both my grandfathers have served, my dad's dad was a military police officer, and my mom's grandfather was a navy officer during the korean war. my dad's brother is a retired chief of police. and some of my friends from high school are serving right now.  That being said, most people who go against the national anthem protest, have never served, not only that, but they act like players are doing this for no reason. like the police brutality, and racism in our country doesn't exist.   Ignorance is bliss, and players aren't gonna stop because your feelings are hurt.   CMV: kneeling for the national anthem is not disrespectful to the military, or veterans.","c_root_id_A":"e7vt6xe","c_root_id_B":"e7vwbhf","created_at_utc_A":1539712867,"created_at_utc_B":1539715310,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I personally agree with you, but you can also place it in a greater context of what it means to be disrespectful.    Disrespect is a combination of intention and perception.  Even if you intend no disrespect, it can be valid for someone to perceive a symbol or phrase or action as disrespectful.    Especially with social media as it is, there are cases where perception is essentially the only thing that matters.  Roseanne Barr can try to explain her tweet away all day and may not have meant anything offensive by it, but perception is really all that matters in the public eye.  People felt disrespected (and for good reason, not trying to make that an issue), so intention didn't matter, or people assumed they knew what her intent was, no matter what she said.    It's perfectly valid to say that no disrespect is intended and that you personally (as I personally) feel it isn't disrespectful, but our common perception isn't objectively correct.  If there are members of the military that feel disrespected, it's presumptuous to assume that they're wrong by some objective standard.","human_ref_B":"I personally think it's distasteful but it's their right to do what they want. Tbh I can't understand why people just can't accept the fact that there would be always different opinions and while we may not agree with it we don't need to be disrespectful or spout hate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2443.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"72ghwd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Sitting during the National Anthem does not show disrespect to the military I\u2019ve seen everyone saying how all the NFL players protesting are disrespecting our military and first responders by sitting for the National Anthem, and I don\u2019t understand it.  How is sitting during the National Anthem showing disrespect to the military?   I completely understand how many are saying that is disrespectful to the flag and what it represents, but what about that makes it disrespectful to our military? In my opinion, it\u2019s anything but disrespectful to the military because our military fight to preserve our democracy, and the freedom of speech is something that falls within democracy. The way I see it, they\u2019re just expressing themselves in a way they see fit, whether it is effective or not.   Perhaps it would be different if I was part of a military family or if I was in the military, but I just don\u2019t see the connection that many others are seeing, and I\u2019d like to understand that point of view.","c_root_id_A":"dnic7t7","c_root_id_B":"dnibx37","created_at_utc_A":1506383932,"created_at_utc_B":1506383549,"score_A":42,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I agree completely with your view, OP, but here's the argument I've heard:  *The flag and anthem are symbols of the country and refusing to stand for the anthem is disrespecting the country, and by extension those who have fought for the country.*  Do you believe that anthem protests are disrespectful to the country? Or do you just dispute the link between country and military?","human_ref_B":"Sitting during the national anthem if you are capable of standing violates flag code. Now that is your right as a free citizen to utilize your free speech to do this, but it is an inherent insult to the flag, the country, and all the citizens of the country including those that protect its values such as the Military. Something being your opinion, or your right does not make the action not insulting or disrespectful.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":383.0,"score_ratio":5.25}
+{"post_id":"72ghwd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Sitting during the National Anthem does not show disrespect to the military I\u2019ve seen everyone saying how all the NFL players protesting are disrespecting our military and first responders by sitting for the National Anthem, and I don\u2019t understand it.  How is sitting during the National Anthem showing disrespect to the military?   I completely understand how many are saying that is disrespectful to the flag and what it represents, but what about that makes it disrespectful to our military? In my opinion, it\u2019s anything but disrespectful to the military because our military fight to preserve our democracy, and the freedom of speech is something that falls within democracy. The way I see it, they\u2019re just expressing themselves in a way they see fit, whether it is effective or not.   Perhaps it would be different if I was part of a military family or if I was in the military, but I just don\u2019t see the connection that many others are seeing, and I\u2019d like to understand that point of view.","c_root_id_A":"dnifr8v","c_root_id_B":"dnid5k6","created_at_utc_A":1506388238,"created_at_utc_B":1506385120,"score_A":33,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"I personally think this whole issue has been blown out of proportion, but here's something to consider.   The singing of the national anthem is an act similar to a moment of silence or a prayer. It's a time to stop and reflect on our country and the sacrifices that have been made to allow us to sit around and freely watch a game for entertainment. Freedom and prosperity are not automatic things and it's important to remember that a lot has been done to ensure we have them. Not everyone views the anthem and flag this way, but a significant number of people do. It's important and special to them. This is especially true for many members of the military.    When players decide to use that time, which millions feel is special and sacred, to bring attention to their own personal causes, it is a bit selfish and disrespectful. It might be effective. It might be needed. But it is taking a ceremony that millions of people revere and using it for their own personal pet causes. The players doing it are most likely doing it because they believe in their fight, but they aren't really being respectful to those people that view the signing of the national anthem as something important and special. They have decided that their feelings on social issues are more important than the feelings of those who find the singing of the anthem sacred. That is a little disrespectful.    Protests in general are disrespectful. They are loud. People block streets. Sometimes they get violent. They go against the status quo. But sometimes being disrespectful is necessary to bring about change. You can support players protesting during the anthem and still believe that it's disrespectful.","human_ref_B":"Here is my take. The US has a set of values of which many have died to preserve and the national anthem is an ode to those who preserve and died for the foundation of the country. The lyrics even mention this   >\"O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved home and the war's desolation. Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just\"  Kneeling shows that you do not respect the flag, the unity, the values of the country and those that died for those values.  Given, you have a right to not stand, but doing so, in my opinion, is disrespectful and not an appropriate avenue of protest.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3118.0,"score_ratio":1.32}
+{"post_id":"72ghwd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Sitting during the National Anthem does not show disrespect to the military I\u2019ve seen everyone saying how all the NFL players protesting are disrespecting our military and first responders by sitting for the National Anthem, and I don\u2019t understand it.  How is sitting during the National Anthem showing disrespect to the military?   I completely understand how many are saying that is disrespectful to the flag and what it represents, but what about that makes it disrespectful to our military? In my opinion, it\u2019s anything but disrespectful to the military because our military fight to preserve our democracy, and the freedom of speech is something that falls within democracy. The way I see it, they\u2019re just expressing themselves in a way they see fit, whether it is effective or not.   Perhaps it would be different if I was part of a military family or if I was in the military, but I just don\u2019t see the connection that many others are seeing, and I\u2019d like to understand that point of view.","c_root_id_A":"dnibx37","c_root_id_B":"dnifr8v","created_at_utc_A":1506383549,"created_at_utc_B":1506388238,"score_A":8,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"Sitting during the national anthem if you are capable of standing violates flag code. Now that is your right as a free citizen to utilize your free speech to do this, but it is an inherent insult to the flag, the country, and all the citizens of the country including those that protect its values such as the Military. Something being your opinion, or your right does not make the action not insulting or disrespectful.","human_ref_B":"I personally think this whole issue has been blown out of proportion, but here's something to consider.   The singing of the national anthem is an act similar to a moment of silence or a prayer. It's a time to stop and reflect on our country and the sacrifices that have been made to allow us to sit around and freely watch a game for entertainment. Freedom and prosperity are not automatic things and it's important to remember that a lot has been done to ensure we have them. Not everyone views the anthem and flag this way, but a significant number of people do. It's important and special to them. This is especially true for many members of the military.    When players decide to use that time, which millions feel is special and sacred, to bring attention to their own personal causes, it is a bit selfish and disrespectful. It might be effective. It might be needed. But it is taking a ceremony that millions of people revere and using it for their own personal pet causes. The players doing it are most likely doing it because they believe in their fight, but they aren't really being respectful to those people that view the signing of the national anthem as something important and special. They have decided that their feelings on social issues are more important than the feelings of those who find the singing of the anthem sacred. That is a little disrespectful.    Protests in general are disrespectful. They are loud. People block streets. Sometimes they get violent. They go against the status quo. But sometimes being disrespectful is necessary to bring about change. You can support players protesting during the anthem and still believe that it's disrespectful.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4689.0,"score_ratio":4.125}
+{"post_id":"72ghwd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Sitting during the National Anthem does not show disrespect to the military I\u2019ve seen everyone saying how all the NFL players protesting are disrespecting our military and first responders by sitting for the National Anthem, and I don\u2019t understand it.  How is sitting during the National Anthem showing disrespect to the military?   I completely understand how many are saying that is disrespectful to the flag and what it represents, but what about that makes it disrespectful to our military? In my opinion, it\u2019s anything but disrespectful to the military because our military fight to preserve our democracy, and the freedom of speech is something that falls within democracy. The way I see it, they\u2019re just expressing themselves in a way they see fit, whether it is effective or not.   Perhaps it would be different if I was part of a military family or if I was in the military, but I just don\u2019t see the connection that many others are seeing, and I\u2019d like to understand that point of view.","c_root_id_A":"dnid5k6","c_root_id_B":"dnibx37","created_at_utc_A":1506385120,"created_at_utc_B":1506383549,"score_A":25,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Here is my take. The US has a set of values of which many have died to preserve and the national anthem is an ode to those who preserve and died for the foundation of the country. The lyrics even mention this   >\"O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved home and the war's desolation. Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just\"  Kneeling shows that you do not respect the flag, the unity, the values of the country and those that died for those values.  Given, you have a right to not stand, but doing so, in my opinion, is disrespectful and not an appropriate avenue of protest.","human_ref_B":"Sitting during the national anthem if you are capable of standing violates flag code. Now that is your right as a free citizen to utilize your free speech to do this, but it is an inherent insult to the flag, the country, and all the citizens of the country including those that protect its values such as the Military. Something being your opinion, or your right does not make the action not insulting or disrespectful.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1571.0,"score_ratio":3.125}
+{"post_id":"72ghwd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Sitting during the National Anthem does not show disrespect to the military I\u2019ve seen everyone saying how all the NFL players protesting are disrespecting our military and first responders by sitting for the National Anthem, and I don\u2019t understand it.  How is sitting during the National Anthem showing disrespect to the military?   I completely understand how many are saying that is disrespectful to the flag and what it represents, but what about that makes it disrespectful to our military? In my opinion, it\u2019s anything but disrespectful to the military because our military fight to preserve our democracy, and the freedom of speech is something that falls within democracy. The way I see it, they\u2019re just expressing themselves in a way they see fit, whether it is effective or not.   Perhaps it would be different if I was part of a military family or if I was in the military, but I just don\u2019t see the connection that many others are seeing, and I\u2019d like to understand that point of view.","c_root_id_A":"dnisji6","c_root_id_B":"dnii23q","created_at_utc_A":1506407146,"created_at_utc_B":1506390948,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"\"Please rise and remove your hats as we honor our country in tonight's singing of our national anthem.\"  Nah, I think I'll kneel...  Deliberately not following instructions is disrespectful. Period.  More specifically in this context I believe it is disrespectful to both our country and military members. The flag is a symbol of our country's hardships and achievements, especially militarily. Listen to the words of the anthem. It was originally a poem written by Francis Scott Key after witnessing a battle during the War of 1812. The anthem and flag are a direct symbol of our country's military. When a soldier dies in battle, his\/her coffin is wrapped in the flag. It's not just any old piece of cloth. It's a very powerful symbol to many people of this country, especially military members.  This being said, I do believe it is okay for these players to protest during the anthem. I don't agree with it, but they are allowed to do it. But just because you're allowed to do something doesn't mean you should. That's my point of view at least.","human_ref_B":"Unless I'm wrong, I thought when this all started with kaepernick it had nothing to do with the flag or military. I thought it had to do with a verse of the national anthem that alluded to slavery and he, therefore, refused to stand for the song. The entire struggle has morphed into something else or I could just be way off base. Anyway, I don't really think any of those players would say they don't love living in this country or even lack respect for the military. I would expect most of them have at least some friends or family in the military or who are vets. I think black athletes face a lot of pressure to advocate and be active on the issues that are important to others. I just don't really understand why they go about it in this manner. They have an opportunity and a platform that most never will. I think a lot of other people don't understand why they protest in this manner either and assume that it is as simple as being disrespectful to something they are against. While I believe there are more effective ways to bring about change, I am able to look at the situation and see where they (the athletes) are coming from. I understand that they are just people, very young people who aren't any more  capable, and maybe even less so, than any of the rest of us at solving issues such as racism. Maybe simply kneeling is the best way they know to communicate their feelings. I think others expect more of them than they are maybe capable of and aren't able to see things from their perspective. So while I don't think it's disrespectful, I can also see how many people aren't able to see it as anything else.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16198.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"72ghwd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Sitting during the National Anthem does not show disrespect to the military I\u2019ve seen everyone saying how all the NFL players protesting are disrespecting our military and first responders by sitting for the National Anthem, and I don\u2019t understand it.  How is sitting during the National Anthem showing disrespect to the military?   I completely understand how many are saying that is disrespectful to the flag and what it represents, but what about that makes it disrespectful to our military? In my opinion, it\u2019s anything but disrespectful to the military because our military fight to preserve our democracy, and the freedom of speech is something that falls within democracy. The way I see it, they\u2019re just expressing themselves in a way they see fit, whether it is effective or not.   Perhaps it would be different if I was part of a military family or if I was in the military, but I just don\u2019t see the connection that many others are seeing, and I\u2019d like to understand that point of view.","c_root_id_A":"dnifrve","c_root_id_B":"dnisji6","created_at_utc_A":1506388259,"created_at_utc_B":1506407146,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"My perspective is this - you have the right to do a lot of things, but you don\u2019t have the right to be protected from the consequence of your actions.   Not standing, or purposely refusing to, for the national anthem is hugely disrespectful to the country as a whole and especially the people who continually fight for your rights.   There are currently military members deployed right now. Fighting for the rights of all Americans. There are currently military members preparing and ready to deploy right now. And rather than respect that by simply standing silently for say 5 minutes, you choose to kneel, and openly disrespect those people?","human_ref_B":"\"Please rise and remove your hats as we honor our country in tonight's singing of our national anthem.\"  Nah, I think I'll kneel...  Deliberately not following instructions is disrespectful. Period.  More specifically in this context I believe it is disrespectful to both our country and military members. The flag is a symbol of our country's hardships and achievements, especially militarily. Listen to the words of the anthem. It was originally a poem written by Francis Scott Key after witnessing a battle during the War of 1812. The anthem and flag are a direct symbol of our country's military. When a soldier dies in battle, his\/her coffin is wrapped in the flag. It's not just any old piece of cloth. It's a very powerful symbol to many people of this country, especially military members.  This being said, I do believe it is okay for these players to protest during the anthem. I don't agree with it, but they are allowed to do it. But just because you're allowed to do something doesn't mean you should. That's my point of view at least.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18887.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
+{"post_id":"72ghwd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Sitting during the National Anthem does not show disrespect to the military I\u2019ve seen everyone saying how all the NFL players protesting are disrespecting our military and first responders by sitting for the National Anthem, and I don\u2019t understand it.  How is sitting during the National Anthem showing disrespect to the military?   I completely understand how many are saying that is disrespectful to the flag and what it represents, but what about that makes it disrespectful to our military? In my opinion, it\u2019s anything but disrespectful to the military because our military fight to preserve our democracy, and the freedom of speech is something that falls within democracy. The way I see it, they\u2019re just expressing themselves in a way they see fit, whether it is effective or not.   Perhaps it would be different if I was part of a military family or if I was in the military, but I just don\u2019t see the connection that many others are seeing, and I\u2019d like to understand that point of view.","c_root_id_A":"dnii23q","c_root_id_B":"dnifrve","created_at_utc_A":1506390948,"created_at_utc_B":1506388259,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Unless I'm wrong, I thought when this all started with kaepernick it had nothing to do with the flag or military. I thought it had to do with a verse of the national anthem that alluded to slavery and he, therefore, refused to stand for the song. The entire struggle has morphed into something else or I could just be way off base. Anyway, I don't really think any of those players would say they don't love living in this country or even lack respect for the military. I would expect most of them have at least some friends or family in the military or who are vets. I think black athletes face a lot of pressure to advocate and be active on the issues that are important to others. I just don't really understand why they go about it in this manner. They have an opportunity and a platform that most never will. I think a lot of other people don't understand why they protest in this manner either and assume that it is as simple as being disrespectful to something they are against. While I believe there are more effective ways to bring about change, I am able to look at the situation and see where they (the athletes) are coming from. I understand that they are just people, very young people who aren't any more  capable, and maybe even less so, than any of the rest of us at solving issues such as racism. Maybe simply kneeling is the best way they know to communicate their feelings. I think others expect more of them than they are maybe capable of and aren't able to see things from their perspective. So while I don't think it's disrespectful, I can also see how many people aren't able to see it as anything else.","human_ref_B":"My perspective is this - you have the right to do a lot of things, but you don\u2019t have the right to be protected from the consequence of your actions.   Not standing, or purposely refusing to, for the national anthem is hugely disrespectful to the country as a whole and especially the people who continually fight for your rights.   There are currently military members deployed right now. Fighting for the rights of all Americans. There are currently military members preparing and ready to deploy right now. And rather than respect that by simply standing silently for say 5 minutes, you choose to kneel, and openly disrespect those people?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2689.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"72ghwd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Sitting during the National Anthem does not show disrespect to the military I\u2019ve seen everyone saying how all the NFL players protesting are disrespecting our military and first responders by sitting for the National Anthem, and I don\u2019t understand it.  How is sitting during the National Anthem showing disrespect to the military?   I completely understand how many are saying that is disrespectful to the flag and what it represents, but what about that makes it disrespectful to our military? In my opinion, it\u2019s anything but disrespectful to the military because our military fight to preserve our democracy, and the freedom of speech is something that falls within democracy. The way I see it, they\u2019re just expressing themselves in a way they see fit, whether it is effective or not.   Perhaps it would be different if I was part of a military family or if I was in the military, but I just don\u2019t see the connection that many others are seeing, and I\u2019d like to understand that point of view.","c_root_id_A":"dnivwen","c_root_id_B":"dnifrve","created_at_utc_A":1506416362,"created_at_utc_B":1506388259,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"That's the point, to be disrespectful  It's to get your attention as a protest movement from \"celebrity\" which is more powerful than randoms with signs  The flag is disrespected in a hundred ways according to official statutes (putting it on clothes or advertisements for example)   As for the military, they are supposed to fight and die for the flag but in reality it is for a paycheck and the pleasure of killing people), adrenaline    Trump getting mad about it is classic distraction technique, because he doesn't want to talk about why they are doing it","human_ref_B":"My perspective is this - you have the right to do a lot of things, but you don\u2019t have the right to be protected from the consequence of your actions.   Not standing, or purposely refusing to, for the national anthem is hugely disrespectful to the country as a whole and especially the people who continually fight for your rights.   There are currently military members deployed right now. Fighting for the rights of all Americans. There are currently military members preparing and ready to deploy right now. And rather than respect that by simply standing silently for say 5 minutes, you choose to kneel, and openly disrespect those people?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28103.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithhea3","c_root_id_B":"ithhey0","created_at_utc_A":1666548477,"created_at_utc_B":1666548484,"score_A":5,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Yeah that's a pretty weak argument. Sure, a teenager can do math, but math alone doesn't tell the full story on finances. Math can tell you that 300,000 is a big number, but it can't tell you whether this is a reasonable price to pay for a house, or what acceptable mortgage terms on that house will be. The numbers alone are essentially meaningless without context, and it's the adults and institutions around teens that provide that context for them. And the context surrounding student loans was always \"yes it seems like a lot of debt, but trust us (the people who are selling you that debt and\/or don't know any better themselves) it won't matter because you'll be making a lot of money with your degree\". And teens not only lack social literacy (due to young age) but they have just got done with grade school, where we teach them that capitalism is moral and that all they have to do is work hard and they will succeed, not exactly the social context to realize they are being scammed. And obviously, when people say things like \"18 year olds should not be expected to make life-long financial decisions\", *this* is what they are talking about, not a supposed metal condition that makes teens unable to do basic multiplication, or something","human_ref_B":">A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.  Is it? I have literally never heard or seen this discussed.  >I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.  Huh? Maturity has 0 to do with math skills.  Also, no, the majority are not, though it doesn't matter.  >As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.  What does this have to do with maturity or late brain development?  Seventh graders can do well on the SAT and ACT. Do you think they should be able to sign legal contracts, take out mortgages?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7.0,"score_ratio":3.8}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithhey0","c_root_id_B":"ithfwur","created_at_utc_A":1666548484,"created_at_utc_B":1666547914,"score_A":19,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.  Is it? I have literally never heard or seen this discussed.  >I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.  Huh? Maturity has 0 to do with math skills.  Also, no, the majority are not, though it doesn't matter.  >As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.  What does this have to do with maturity or late brain development?  Seventh graders can do well on the SAT and ACT. Do you think they should be able to sign legal contracts, take out mortgages?","human_ref_B":"That\u2019s like saying my cat is really good at getting on the roof so clearly it knows how to fly","labels":1,"seconds_difference":570.0,"score_ratio":4.75}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithhey0","c_root_id_B":"ithhe3d","created_at_utc_A":1666548484,"created_at_utc_B":1666548476,"score_A":19,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.  Is it? I have literally never heard or seen this discussed.  >I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.  Huh? Maturity has 0 to do with math skills.  Also, no, the majority are not, though it doesn't matter.  >As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.  What does this have to do with maturity or late brain development?  Seventh graders can do well on the SAT and ACT. Do you think they should be able to sign legal contracts, take out mortgages?","human_ref_B":"Being competent enough to do basic math doesn't equal understanding the consequences of a predatory loan. At 18 we won't let a child drink alcohol, but its perfectly okay for them to take out 100K in loans? Where is the consistency there? They spent the last 12 years being brainwashed into thinking they absolutely need that degree to be successful, then we saddle them with ridiculous school cost, what exactly are they supposed to do?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithhfw7","c_root_id_B":"ithhea3","created_at_utc_A":1666548494,"created_at_utc_B":1666548477,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The issue with the immaturity argument is that it's justification for infantilism. We want to give 18 year olds every freedom in the world to decide their sexual identifies, and engage in family planning, yet insist they are too brash to handle a loan for schooling. Which is it, are they adults or kids? The cost of freedom is responsibility. We want one and not the other, when we need to have both. Hold them responsible and stop giving out loans.","human_ref_B":"Yeah that's a pretty weak argument. Sure, a teenager can do math, but math alone doesn't tell the full story on finances. Math can tell you that 300,000 is a big number, but it can't tell you whether this is a reasonable price to pay for a house, or what acceptable mortgage terms on that house will be. The numbers alone are essentially meaningless without context, and it's the adults and institutions around teens that provide that context for them. And the context surrounding student loans was always \"yes it seems like a lot of debt, but trust us (the people who are selling you that debt and\/or don't know any better themselves) it won't matter because you'll be making a lot of money with your degree\". And teens not only lack social literacy (due to young age) but they have just got done with grade school, where we teach them that capitalism is moral and that all they have to do is work hard and they will succeed, not exactly the social context to realize they are being scammed. And obviously, when people say things like \"18 year olds should not be expected to make life-long financial decisions\", *this* is what they are talking about, not a supposed metal condition that makes teens unable to do basic multiplication, or something","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithhfw7","c_root_id_B":"ithfwur","created_at_utc_A":1666548494,"created_at_utc_B":1666547914,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The issue with the immaturity argument is that it's justification for infantilism. We want to give 18 year olds every freedom in the world to decide their sexual identifies, and engage in family planning, yet insist they are too brash to handle a loan for schooling. Which is it, are they adults or kids? The cost of freedom is responsibility. We want one and not the other, when we need to have both. Hold them responsible and stop giving out loans.","human_ref_B":"That\u2019s like saying my cat is really good at getting on the roof so clearly it knows how to fly","labels":1,"seconds_difference":580.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithhe3d","c_root_id_B":"ithhfw7","created_at_utc_A":1666548476,"created_at_utc_B":1666548494,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Being competent enough to do basic math doesn't equal understanding the consequences of a predatory loan. At 18 we won't let a child drink alcohol, but its perfectly okay for them to take out 100K in loans? Where is the consistency there? They spent the last 12 years being brainwashed into thinking they absolutely need that degree to be successful, then we saddle them with ridiculous school cost, what exactly are they supposed to do?","human_ref_B":"The issue with the immaturity argument is that it's justification for infantilism. We want to give 18 year olds every freedom in the world to decide their sexual identifies, and engage in family planning, yet insist they are too brash to handle a loan for schooling. Which is it, are they adults or kids? The cost of freedom is responsibility. We want one and not the other, when we need to have both. Hold them responsible and stop giving out loans.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithkedg","c_root_id_B":"ithhea3","created_at_utc_A":1666549616,"created_at_utc_B":1666548477,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"When I was 17 I looked at the annual cost of tuition and multiplied it by four years and decided to do my first two years at a community college and then transfer to a public university with affordable tuition.   Kids are smart enough to know the cost, it\u2019s the social pressure of going straight to a 4 year university and the availability of loans that motivates them to take on massive amounts of debt that they don\u2019t have to deal with until what feels like the very distant future.","human_ref_B":"Yeah that's a pretty weak argument. Sure, a teenager can do math, but math alone doesn't tell the full story on finances. Math can tell you that 300,000 is a big number, but it can't tell you whether this is a reasonable price to pay for a house, or what acceptable mortgage terms on that house will be. The numbers alone are essentially meaningless without context, and it's the adults and institutions around teens that provide that context for them. And the context surrounding student loans was always \"yes it seems like a lot of debt, but trust us (the people who are selling you that debt and\/or don't know any better themselves) it won't matter because you'll be making a lot of money with your degree\". And teens not only lack social literacy (due to young age) but they have just got done with grade school, where we teach them that capitalism is moral and that all they have to do is work hard and they will succeed, not exactly the social context to realize they are being scammed. And obviously, when people say things like \"18 year olds should not be expected to make life-long financial decisions\", *this* is what they are talking about, not a supposed metal condition that makes teens unable to do basic multiplication, or something","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1139.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithfwur","c_root_id_B":"ithhea3","created_at_utc_A":1666547914,"created_at_utc_B":1666548477,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"That\u2019s like saying my cat is really good at getting on the roof so clearly it knows how to fly","human_ref_B":"Yeah that's a pretty weak argument. Sure, a teenager can do math, but math alone doesn't tell the full story on finances. Math can tell you that 300,000 is a big number, but it can't tell you whether this is a reasonable price to pay for a house, or what acceptable mortgage terms on that house will be. The numbers alone are essentially meaningless without context, and it's the adults and institutions around teens that provide that context for them. And the context surrounding student loans was always \"yes it seems like a lot of debt, but trust us (the people who are selling you that debt and\/or don't know any better themselves) it won't matter because you'll be making a lot of money with your degree\". And teens not only lack social literacy (due to young age) but they have just got done with grade school, where we teach them that capitalism is moral and that all they have to do is work hard and they will succeed, not exactly the social context to realize they are being scammed. And obviously, when people say things like \"18 year olds should not be expected to make life-long financial decisions\", *this* is what they are talking about, not a supposed metal condition that makes teens unable to do basic multiplication, or something","labels":0,"seconds_difference":563.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithhe3d","c_root_id_B":"ithhea3","created_at_utc_A":1666548476,"created_at_utc_B":1666548477,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Being competent enough to do basic math doesn't equal understanding the consequences of a predatory loan. At 18 we won't let a child drink alcohol, but its perfectly okay for them to take out 100K in loans? Where is the consistency there? They spent the last 12 years being brainwashed into thinking they absolutely need that degree to be successful, then we saddle them with ridiculous school cost, what exactly are they supposed to do?","human_ref_B":"Yeah that's a pretty weak argument. Sure, a teenager can do math, but math alone doesn't tell the full story on finances. Math can tell you that 300,000 is a big number, but it can't tell you whether this is a reasonable price to pay for a house, or what acceptable mortgage terms on that house will be. The numbers alone are essentially meaningless without context, and it's the adults and institutions around teens that provide that context for them. And the context surrounding student loans was always \"yes it seems like a lot of debt, but trust us (the people who are selling you that debt and\/or don't know any better themselves) it won't matter because you'll be making a lot of money with your degree\". And teens not only lack social literacy (due to young age) but they have just got done with grade school, where we teach them that capitalism is moral and that all they have to do is work hard and they will succeed, not exactly the social context to realize they are being scammed. And obviously, when people say things like \"18 year olds should not be expected to make life-long financial decisions\", *this* is what they are talking about, not a supposed metal condition that makes teens unable to do basic multiplication, or something","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithkedg","c_root_id_B":"ithk0m7","created_at_utc_A":1666549616,"created_at_utc_B":1666549471,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"When I was 17 I looked at the annual cost of tuition and multiplied it by four years and decided to do my first two years at a community college and then transfer to a public university with affordable tuition.   Kids are smart enough to know the cost, it\u2019s the social pressure of going straight to a 4 year university and the availability of loans that motivates them to take on massive amounts of debt that they don\u2019t have to deal with until what feels like the very distant future.","human_ref_B":"The discussions in this thread are super interesting actually. You make an interesting case OP about math being a strong component of finances, but other comments have offered good counters with the variables that go into being well rounded in finance and making mature decisions with finances. I hope this comment is allowed, because I wanted to bring into this the neurophysiological maturity surrounding the right to vote at 18 and to sign up for Selective Service, while also making the legal drinking age 21. The law of the land deems 18 year olds mature enough to sign up for the military and possibly putting your life in harm's way, and similarly expects 18 year olds to be knowledgeable and equipped to be a genuine voter to make a contribution to the constitutional republic and democracy. Furthermore, being a voter comes with acknowledging that you are bound by the law of the land and have the capacity to voice concerns about the law. Yet, the law deems 18-20 year olds not neurophysiologically mature enough to be responsible with alcohol, while some European nations deem youth between 16-20 responsible with alcohol. That all just to add a new topic to the discussion about how we define \"neurologically mature\" and what we deem to be too much of a weight\/commitment to bear.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":145.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithk0m7","c_root_id_B":"ithfwur","created_at_utc_A":1666549471,"created_at_utc_B":1666547914,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The discussions in this thread are super interesting actually. You make an interesting case OP about math being a strong component of finances, but other comments have offered good counters with the variables that go into being well rounded in finance and making mature decisions with finances. I hope this comment is allowed, because I wanted to bring into this the neurophysiological maturity surrounding the right to vote at 18 and to sign up for Selective Service, while also making the legal drinking age 21. The law of the land deems 18 year olds mature enough to sign up for the military and possibly putting your life in harm's way, and similarly expects 18 year olds to be knowledgeable and equipped to be a genuine voter to make a contribution to the constitutional republic and democracy. Furthermore, being a voter comes with acknowledging that you are bound by the law of the land and have the capacity to voice concerns about the law. Yet, the law deems 18-20 year olds not neurophysiologically mature enough to be responsible with alcohol, while some European nations deem youth between 16-20 responsible with alcohol. That all just to add a new topic to the discussion about how we define \"neurologically mature\" and what we deem to be too much of a weight\/commitment to bear.","human_ref_B":"That\u2019s like saying my cat is really good at getting on the roof so clearly it knows how to fly","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1557.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithk0m7","c_root_id_B":"ithhe3d","created_at_utc_A":1666549471,"created_at_utc_B":1666548476,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The discussions in this thread are super interesting actually. You make an interesting case OP about math being a strong component of finances, but other comments have offered good counters with the variables that go into being well rounded in finance and making mature decisions with finances. I hope this comment is allowed, because I wanted to bring into this the neurophysiological maturity surrounding the right to vote at 18 and to sign up for Selective Service, while also making the legal drinking age 21. The law of the land deems 18 year olds mature enough to sign up for the military and possibly putting your life in harm's way, and similarly expects 18 year olds to be knowledgeable and equipped to be a genuine voter to make a contribution to the constitutional republic and democracy. Furthermore, being a voter comes with acknowledging that you are bound by the law of the land and have the capacity to voice concerns about the law. Yet, the law deems 18-20 year olds not neurophysiologically mature enough to be responsible with alcohol, while some European nations deem youth between 16-20 responsible with alcohol. That all just to add a new topic to the discussion about how we define \"neurologically mature\" and what we deem to be too much of a weight\/commitment to bear.","human_ref_B":"Being competent enough to do basic math doesn't equal understanding the consequences of a predatory loan. At 18 we won't let a child drink alcohol, but its perfectly okay for them to take out 100K in loans? Where is the consistency there? They spent the last 12 years being brainwashed into thinking they absolutely need that degree to be successful, then we saddle them with ridiculous school cost, what exactly are they supposed to do?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":995.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithk0m7","c_root_id_B":"ithj79c","created_at_utc_A":1666549471,"created_at_utc_B":1666549159,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The discussions in this thread are super interesting actually. You make an interesting case OP about math being a strong component of finances, but other comments have offered good counters with the variables that go into being well rounded in finance and making mature decisions with finances. I hope this comment is allowed, because I wanted to bring into this the neurophysiological maturity surrounding the right to vote at 18 and to sign up for Selective Service, while also making the legal drinking age 21. The law of the land deems 18 year olds mature enough to sign up for the military and possibly putting your life in harm's way, and similarly expects 18 year olds to be knowledgeable and equipped to be a genuine voter to make a contribution to the constitutional republic and democracy. Furthermore, being a voter comes with acknowledging that you are bound by the law of the land and have the capacity to voice concerns about the law. Yet, the law deems 18-20 year olds not neurophysiologically mature enough to be responsible with alcohol, while some European nations deem youth between 16-20 responsible with alcohol. That all just to add a new topic to the discussion about how we define \"neurologically mature\" and what we deem to be too much of a weight\/commitment to bear.","human_ref_B":"I agree it\u2019s stupid, but only because there shouldn\u2019t need to be excuse. Public education was provided for grades 1-12 because that\u2019s what was necessary for someone to be a good citizen and productive member of society. Today a high school education is not enough to meet those standards and so public college and trade education should obviously be provided. Someone shouldn\u2019t be able to go to 40k a year harvard for free, but no one should have to pay for public higher education","labels":1,"seconds_difference":312.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithfwur","c_root_id_B":"ithkedg","created_at_utc_A":1666547914,"created_at_utc_B":1666549616,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"That\u2019s like saying my cat is really good at getting on the roof so clearly it knows how to fly","human_ref_B":"When I was 17 I looked at the annual cost of tuition and multiplied it by four years and decided to do my first two years at a community college and then transfer to a public university with affordable tuition.   Kids are smart enough to know the cost, it\u2019s the social pressure of going straight to a 4 year university and the availability of loans that motivates them to take on massive amounts of debt that they don\u2019t have to deal with until what feels like the very distant future.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1702.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithhe3d","c_root_id_B":"ithkedg","created_at_utc_A":1666548476,"created_at_utc_B":1666549616,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Being competent enough to do basic math doesn't equal understanding the consequences of a predatory loan. At 18 we won't let a child drink alcohol, but its perfectly okay for them to take out 100K in loans? Where is the consistency there? They spent the last 12 years being brainwashed into thinking they absolutely need that degree to be successful, then we saddle them with ridiculous school cost, what exactly are they supposed to do?","human_ref_B":"When I was 17 I looked at the annual cost of tuition and multiplied it by four years and decided to do my first two years at a community college and then transfer to a public university with affordable tuition.   Kids are smart enough to know the cost, it\u2019s the social pressure of going straight to a 4 year university and the availability of loans that motivates them to take on massive amounts of debt that they don\u2019t have to deal with until what feels like the very distant future.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1140.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"ybo55b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: The \u201cneurophysiological immaturity\u201d justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments.   I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree.   As a summary, I argue that ACT\/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds.","c_root_id_A":"ithkedg","c_root_id_B":"ithj79c","created_at_utc_A":1666549616,"created_at_utc_B":1666549159,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"When I was 17 I looked at the annual cost of tuition and multiplied it by four years and decided to do my first two years at a community college and then transfer to a public university with affordable tuition.   Kids are smart enough to know the cost, it\u2019s the social pressure of going straight to a 4 year university and the availability of loans that motivates them to take on massive amounts of debt that they don\u2019t have to deal with until what feels like the very distant future.","human_ref_B":"I agree it\u2019s stupid, but only because there shouldn\u2019t need to be excuse. Public education was provided for grades 1-12 because that\u2019s what was necessary for someone to be a good citizen and productive member of society. Today a high school education is not enough to meet those standards and so public college and trade education should obviously be provided. Someone shouldn\u2019t be able to go to 40k a year harvard for free, but no one should have to pay for public higher education","labels":1,"seconds_difference":457.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"pnhrn0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: In a Representative Democracy, there should be no Winning or Losing in Elections. So, it is often taken for granted that the US (I will be using the US for this post, but this can be applied to any representative \"democratic\" body) that we have representative democracy.  We do not.  **If you \"vote\" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.**  In order to give people true voices in their politics, we should move to affirmational representation.  This would mean the following:  1. Elections are just periods in which you can select your representative. 2. Any representative is now a member of that body representing  and casting X # of votes. 3. For ease of discussion and debate (US House of Reps example) only the top 435 representatives sit in the house for debate.  Others can cast votes, but not debate.  4. Voting inside the body will thus be based on total votes.  For example, you may need 150,000,000+ votes to pass a bill in the House of Reps in the United States. 5. Non-voters could be considered \"okay with any\" and their representation could be split proportionally amongst all eligible. 6. A person election to say \"none of these\" would be a vote of no confidence, and thus \"against\" any bill that comes before the body. 7. Same restrictions on candidacy, term limits, etc. can apply is so chosen.  Example of how this would work:  1. You turn in a ballot with a person's name on it. 2. If they get enough votes to pass the minimum threshold (or not, maybe no threshold) is now your representative. 3. Every \"election\" you get to choose someone new, or the same person.  CMV: This would be an ACTUAL Representative Body.","c_root_id_A":"hcpeoki","c_root_id_B":"hcpddum","created_at_utc_A":1631549341,"created_at_utc_B":1631548799,"score_A":18,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Most of the votes that take place in Democracy are winner takes all because the alternative is simply impractical. Let's use the example of a local election, such as voting for a mayor, or police chief. There is precisely one office to fill, and so the winner is whoever gets the most votes. Depending on your voting system, this will either be a FPTP system (highest individual total wins), or some form of run-off where the least popular candidate is struck and then secondary choices of his voters are applied, then the process repeats until someone has a majority (above 50%).  This means that there is no way to sensibly split the results without creating government bloat. In order for people's votes to \"not be wasted\", you would effectively need every office to have a committee of 3-5 (or more) equally-ranked people, filled proportional to the votes cast. This would not make society better - it would simply waste tax money and see that nothing is ever accomplished.  Moreover, any politician or elected official who isn't utterly stupid will pay attention to the elections that got them into power. If you win by the narrowest of margins, you will be fully aware that margin might disappear next election. This is why you find the most moderate candidates in 'swing' counties \/ districts \/ states, and the very worst candidates in safe seats. The former know they have to appeal to their rivals' voters if they want to maintain office, the latter know the sheep will keep them in power no matter how corrupt they are.  So you absolutely do have a voice, even if your candidate loses. If you find yourself in an absolute minority position where your chosen candidates are being utterly destroyed consistently, that isn't proof democracy is broken - it's proof you hold views completely out of alignment with your community, for better or worse.","human_ref_B":"So, what do you do with those \"representatives\" that get a handful of vote (or even just one)? Do you pay all their expenses to be able to be full-time representatives (listen to all the debates in the parliament, go to all the votes, etc.)? If yes, this will make the political system extremely expensive. People will also misuse it. They will set themselves up for being a representative and then just vote for themselves, voila, they are now a \"representative\" with a cushy job in the capital.  If not, but instead you set some vote threshold that the candidates have to get before becoming a representative, then your basis idea gets trashed and all the good things about it go down in drain as then there will be people without representation.  Most of the problems you can fix by using a proportional voting system. If you elect the 435 (or whatever) representatives so that their proportions in the parliament represents the number of votes their party got in the election and the people from the party who get to be the representatives, are those who got the most votes in that party, then you get pretty much all the benefits of your system. You won't have a person as your representative, but a combination of the party and the person In the next election you can vote the same party's different candidate or a different party altogether.  edit. In principle you could modify the proportional system towards your system so that everyone's vote is recorded in the system (but kept secret). Any day you like, you walk to the voting place of your city and say that you want to change your vote. At that point one vote is deducted from the party that you voted before and given to some other party. If this forces a change in the parliament, then one MP there is fired and a new one takes his\/her place. So, you can change your \"representative\" whenever you like and there's no need for any set elections. The government just naturally collapses and a new takes its place, when enough voters have changed their mind.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":542.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"pnhrn0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: In a Representative Democracy, there should be no Winning or Losing in Elections. So, it is often taken for granted that the US (I will be using the US for this post, but this can be applied to any representative \"democratic\" body) that we have representative democracy.  We do not.  **If you \"vote\" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.**  In order to give people true voices in their politics, we should move to affirmational representation.  This would mean the following:  1. Elections are just periods in which you can select your representative. 2. Any representative is now a member of that body representing  and casting X # of votes. 3. For ease of discussion and debate (US House of Reps example) only the top 435 representatives sit in the house for debate.  Others can cast votes, but not debate.  4. Voting inside the body will thus be based on total votes.  For example, you may need 150,000,000+ votes to pass a bill in the House of Reps in the United States. 5. Non-voters could be considered \"okay with any\" and their representation could be split proportionally amongst all eligible. 6. A person election to say \"none of these\" would be a vote of no confidence, and thus \"against\" any bill that comes before the body. 7. Same restrictions on candidacy, term limits, etc. can apply is so chosen.  Example of how this would work:  1. You turn in a ballot with a person's name on it. 2. If they get enough votes to pass the minimum threshold (or not, maybe no threshold) is now your representative. 3. Every \"election\" you get to choose someone new, or the same person.  CMV: This would be an ACTUAL Representative Body.","c_root_id_A":"hcpebza","c_root_id_B":"hcpeoki","created_at_utc_A":1631549195,"created_at_utc_B":1631549341,"score_A":4,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"What do you do with candidates that get 5 votes?   Do they still get paid, if so how much?  Do they still receive intelligence briefings??   Can they be put on committees? If so, how would that function?","human_ref_B":"Most of the votes that take place in Democracy are winner takes all because the alternative is simply impractical. Let's use the example of a local election, such as voting for a mayor, or police chief. There is precisely one office to fill, and so the winner is whoever gets the most votes. Depending on your voting system, this will either be a FPTP system (highest individual total wins), or some form of run-off where the least popular candidate is struck and then secondary choices of his voters are applied, then the process repeats until someone has a majority (above 50%).  This means that there is no way to sensibly split the results without creating government bloat. In order for people's votes to \"not be wasted\", you would effectively need every office to have a committee of 3-5 (or more) equally-ranked people, filled proportional to the votes cast. This would not make society better - it would simply waste tax money and see that nothing is ever accomplished.  Moreover, any politician or elected official who isn't utterly stupid will pay attention to the elections that got them into power. If you win by the narrowest of margins, you will be fully aware that margin might disappear next election. This is why you find the most moderate candidates in 'swing' counties \/ districts \/ states, and the very worst candidates in safe seats. The former know they have to appeal to their rivals' voters if they want to maintain office, the latter know the sheep will keep them in power no matter how corrupt they are.  So you absolutely do have a voice, even if your candidate loses. If you find yourself in an absolute minority position where your chosen candidates are being utterly destroyed consistently, that isn't proof democracy is broken - it's proof you hold views completely out of alignment with your community, for better or worse.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":146.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"pnhrn0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: In a Representative Democracy, there should be no Winning or Losing in Elections. So, it is often taken for granted that the US (I will be using the US for this post, but this can be applied to any representative \"democratic\" body) that we have representative democracy.  We do not.  **If you \"vote\" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.**  In order to give people true voices in their politics, we should move to affirmational representation.  This would mean the following:  1. Elections are just periods in which you can select your representative. 2. Any representative is now a member of that body representing  and casting X # of votes. 3. For ease of discussion and debate (US House of Reps example) only the top 435 representatives sit in the house for debate.  Others can cast votes, but not debate.  4. Voting inside the body will thus be based on total votes.  For example, you may need 150,000,000+ votes to pass a bill in the House of Reps in the United States. 5. Non-voters could be considered \"okay with any\" and their representation could be split proportionally amongst all eligible. 6. A person election to say \"none of these\" would be a vote of no confidence, and thus \"against\" any bill that comes before the body. 7. Same restrictions on candidacy, term limits, etc. can apply is so chosen.  Example of how this would work:  1. You turn in a ballot with a person's name on it. 2. If they get enough votes to pass the minimum threshold (or not, maybe no threshold) is now your representative. 3. Every \"election\" you get to choose someone new, or the same person.  CMV: This would be an ACTUAL Representative Body.","c_root_id_A":"hcpd2vf","c_root_id_B":"hcpeoki","created_at_utc_A":1631548674,"created_at_utc_B":1631549341,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"First off, in the US you do have a representative, even if the candidate you support loses. The representative represents the people of a geographical area, not just the people that voted for them. That representative may not cast a vote in the legislature as you would, but they still represent you. It seems like this could still occur in the system that you propose.  It isn't very obvious what benefits your system offers over the existing system or other alternatives.   The representatives aren't bound to vote the same way as each voter would prefer. It seems like the obvious thing for each person to do to ensure that this doesn't happen would be nominate themselves as their representative, which would essentially be direct democracy with proxy voting.   If your complaint is that votes cast for losing candidates are effectively erased, a system with proportional representation would probably be simpler and has more real-world precidents.  What does your system of essentially transferable votes offer that makes it better?","human_ref_B":"Most of the votes that take place in Democracy are winner takes all because the alternative is simply impractical. Let's use the example of a local election, such as voting for a mayor, or police chief. There is precisely one office to fill, and so the winner is whoever gets the most votes. Depending on your voting system, this will either be a FPTP system (highest individual total wins), or some form of run-off where the least popular candidate is struck and then secondary choices of his voters are applied, then the process repeats until someone has a majority (above 50%).  This means that there is no way to sensibly split the results without creating government bloat. In order for people's votes to \"not be wasted\", you would effectively need every office to have a committee of 3-5 (or more) equally-ranked people, filled proportional to the votes cast. This would not make society better - it would simply waste tax money and see that nothing is ever accomplished.  Moreover, any politician or elected official who isn't utterly stupid will pay attention to the elections that got them into power. If you win by the narrowest of margins, you will be fully aware that margin might disappear next election. This is why you find the most moderate candidates in 'swing' counties \/ districts \/ states, and the very worst candidates in safe seats. The former know they have to appeal to their rivals' voters if they want to maintain office, the latter know the sheep will keep them in power no matter how corrupt they are.  So you absolutely do have a voice, even if your candidate loses. If you find yourself in an absolute minority position where your chosen candidates are being utterly destroyed consistently, that isn't proof democracy is broken - it's proof you hold views completely out of alignment with your community, for better or worse.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":667.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"pnhrn0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: In a Representative Democracy, there should be no Winning or Losing in Elections. So, it is often taken for granted that the US (I will be using the US for this post, but this can be applied to any representative \"democratic\" body) that we have representative democracy.  We do not.  **If you \"vote\" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.**  In order to give people true voices in their politics, we should move to affirmational representation.  This would mean the following:  1. Elections are just periods in which you can select your representative. 2. Any representative is now a member of that body representing  and casting X # of votes. 3. For ease of discussion and debate (US House of Reps example) only the top 435 representatives sit in the house for debate.  Others can cast votes, but not debate.  4. Voting inside the body will thus be based on total votes.  For example, you may need 150,000,000+ votes to pass a bill in the House of Reps in the United States. 5. Non-voters could be considered \"okay with any\" and their representation could be split proportionally amongst all eligible. 6. A person election to say \"none of these\" would be a vote of no confidence, and thus \"against\" any bill that comes before the body. 7. Same restrictions on candidacy, term limits, etc. can apply is so chosen.  Example of how this would work:  1. You turn in a ballot with a person's name on it. 2. If they get enough votes to pass the minimum threshold (or not, maybe no threshold) is now your representative. 3. Every \"election\" you get to choose someone new, or the same person.  CMV: This would be an ACTUAL Representative Body.","c_root_id_A":"hcpf15u","c_root_id_B":"hcpddum","created_at_utc_A":1631549487,"created_at_utc_B":1631548799,"score_A":10,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Representative needs salary and staff if they are to expected to thoroughly familiarize themselves with every possible topic that is brought up to vote.  Now Steve from Kansas with 20 votes are not expected to get same resources than someone with 20 000 votes. This puts representatives in unequal footing. Steve cannot do their work as well as someone else. They need still need to work 40 hours a week at the gas station to pay mortgage.  Now Steve don't have energy, time and money to be a good representative. They forget to cast a ballot. It's not \"none of these\" but empty ballot. People who voted for Steve are not being represented because Steve cannot work and be representative at the same time.  TL;DR: Being representative is a full time job and requires lot of resources (staff etc.)","human_ref_B":"So, what do you do with those \"representatives\" that get a handful of vote (or even just one)? Do you pay all their expenses to be able to be full-time representatives (listen to all the debates in the parliament, go to all the votes, etc.)? If yes, this will make the political system extremely expensive. People will also misuse it. They will set themselves up for being a representative and then just vote for themselves, voila, they are now a \"representative\" with a cushy job in the capital.  If not, but instead you set some vote threshold that the candidates have to get before becoming a representative, then your basis idea gets trashed and all the good things about it go down in drain as then there will be people without representation.  Most of the problems you can fix by using a proportional voting system. If you elect the 435 (or whatever) representatives so that their proportions in the parliament represents the number of votes their party got in the election and the people from the party who get to be the representatives, are those who got the most votes in that party, then you get pretty much all the benefits of your system. You won't have a person as your representative, but a combination of the party and the person In the next election you can vote the same party's different candidate or a different party altogether.  edit. In principle you could modify the proportional system towards your system so that everyone's vote is recorded in the system (but kept secret). Any day you like, you walk to the voting place of your city and say that you want to change your vote. At that point one vote is deducted from the party that you voted before and given to some other party. If this forces a change in the parliament, then one MP there is fired and a new one takes his\/her place. So, you can change your \"representative\" whenever you like and there's no need for any set elections. The government just naturally collapses and a new takes its place, when enough voters have changed their mind.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":688.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"pnhrn0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: In a Representative Democracy, there should be no Winning or Losing in Elections. So, it is often taken for granted that the US (I will be using the US for this post, but this can be applied to any representative \"democratic\" body) that we have representative democracy.  We do not.  **If you \"vote\" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.**  In order to give people true voices in their politics, we should move to affirmational representation.  This would mean the following:  1. Elections are just periods in which you can select your representative. 2. Any representative is now a member of that body representing  and casting X # of votes. 3. For ease of discussion and debate (US House of Reps example) only the top 435 representatives sit in the house for debate.  Others can cast votes, but not debate.  4. Voting inside the body will thus be based on total votes.  For example, you may need 150,000,000+ votes to pass a bill in the House of Reps in the United States. 5. Non-voters could be considered \"okay with any\" and their representation could be split proportionally amongst all eligible. 6. A person election to say \"none of these\" would be a vote of no confidence, and thus \"against\" any bill that comes before the body. 7. Same restrictions on candidacy, term limits, etc. can apply is so chosen.  Example of how this would work:  1. You turn in a ballot with a person's name on it. 2. If they get enough votes to pass the minimum threshold (or not, maybe no threshold) is now your representative. 3. Every \"election\" you get to choose someone new, or the same person.  CMV: This would be an ACTUAL Representative Body.","c_root_id_A":"hcpf15u","c_root_id_B":"hcpebza","created_at_utc_A":1631549487,"created_at_utc_B":1631549195,"score_A":10,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Representative needs salary and staff if they are to expected to thoroughly familiarize themselves with every possible topic that is brought up to vote.  Now Steve from Kansas with 20 votes are not expected to get same resources than someone with 20 000 votes. This puts representatives in unequal footing. Steve cannot do their work as well as someone else. They need still need to work 40 hours a week at the gas station to pay mortgage.  Now Steve don't have energy, time and money to be a good representative. They forget to cast a ballot. It's not \"none of these\" but empty ballot. People who voted for Steve are not being represented because Steve cannot work and be representative at the same time.  TL;DR: Being representative is a full time job and requires lot of resources (staff etc.)","human_ref_B":"What do you do with candidates that get 5 votes?   Do they still get paid, if so how much?  Do they still receive intelligence briefings??   Can they be put on committees? If so, how would that function?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":292.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"pnhrn0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: In a Representative Democracy, there should be no Winning or Losing in Elections. So, it is often taken for granted that the US (I will be using the US for this post, but this can be applied to any representative \"democratic\" body) that we have representative democracy.  We do not.  **If you \"vote\" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.**  In order to give people true voices in their politics, we should move to affirmational representation.  This would mean the following:  1. Elections are just periods in which you can select your representative. 2. Any representative is now a member of that body representing  and casting X # of votes. 3. For ease of discussion and debate (US House of Reps example) only the top 435 representatives sit in the house for debate.  Others can cast votes, but not debate.  4. Voting inside the body will thus be based on total votes.  For example, you may need 150,000,000+ votes to pass a bill in the House of Reps in the United States. 5. Non-voters could be considered \"okay with any\" and their representation could be split proportionally amongst all eligible. 6. A person election to say \"none of these\" would be a vote of no confidence, and thus \"against\" any bill that comes before the body. 7. Same restrictions on candidacy, term limits, etc. can apply is so chosen.  Example of how this would work:  1. You turn in a ballot with a person's name on it. 2. If they get enough votes to pass the minimum threshold (or not, maybe no threshold) is now your representative. 3. Every \"election\" you get to choose someone new, or the same person.  CMV: This would be an ACTUAL Representative Body.","c_root_id_A":"hcpd2vf","c_root_id_B":"hcpf15u","created_at_utc_A":1631548674,"created_at_utc_B":1631549487,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"First off, in the US you do have a representative, even if the candidate you support loses. The representative represents the people of a geographical area, not just the people that voted for them. That representative may not cast a vote in the legislature as you would, but they still represent you. It seems like this could still occur in the system that you propose.  It isn't very obvious what benefits your system offers over the existing system or other alternatives.   The representatives aren't bound to vote the same way as each voter would prefer. It seems like the obvious thing for each person to do to ensure that this doesn't happen would be nominate themselves as their representative, which would essentially be direct democracy with proxy voting.   If your complaint is that votes cast for losing candidates are effectively erased, a system with proportional representation would probably be simpler and has more real-world precidents.  What does your system of essentially transferable votes offer that makes it better?","human_ref_B":"Representative needs salary and staff if they are to expected to thoroughly familiarize themselves with every possible topic that is brought up to vote.  Now Steve from Kansas with 20 votes are not expected to get same resources than someone with 20 000 votes. This puts representatives in unequal footing. Steve cannot do their work as well as someone else. They need still need to work 40 hours a week at the gas station to pay mortgage.  Now Steve don't have energy, time and money to be a good representative. They forget to cast a ballot. It's not \"none of these\" but empty ballot. People who voted for Steve are not being represented because Steve cannot work and be representative at the same time.  TL;DR: Being representative is a full time job and requires lot of resources (staff etc.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":813.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"pnhrn0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: In a Representative Democracy, there should be no Winning or Losing in Elections. So, it is often taken for granted that the US (I will be using the US for this post, but this can be applied to any representative \"democratic\" body) that we have representative democracy.  We do not.  **If you \"vote\" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.**  In order to give people true voices in their politics, we should move to affirmational representation.  This would mean the following:  1. Elections are just periods in which you can select your representative. 2. Any representative is now a member of that body representing  and casting X # of votes. 3. For ease of discussion and debate (US House of Reps example) only the top 435 representatives sit in the house for debate.  Others can cast votes, but not debate.  4. Voting inside the body will thus be based on total votes.  For example, you may need 150,000,000+ votes to pass a bill in the House of Reps in the United States. 5. Non-voters could be considered \"okay with any\" and their representation could be split proportionally amongst all eligible. 6. A person election to say \"none of these\" would be a vote of no confidence, and thus \"against\" any bill that comes before the body. 7. Same restrictions on candidacy, term limits, etc. can apply is so chosen.  Example of how this would work:  1. You turn in a ballot with a person's name on it. 2. If they get enough votes to pass the minimum threshold (or not, maybe no threshold) is now your representative. 3. Every \"election\" you get to choose someone new, or the same person.  CMV: This would be an ACTUAL Representative Body.","c_root_id_A":"hcpddum","c_root_id_B":"hcpd2vf","created_at_utc_A":1631548799,"created_at_utc_B":1631548674,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So, what do you do with those \"representatives\" that get a handful of vote (or even just one)? Do you pay all their expenses to be able to be full-time representatives (listen to all the debates in the parliament, go to all the votes, etc.)? If yes, this will make the political system extremely expensive. People will also misuse it. They will set themselves up for being a representative and then just vote for themselves, voila, they are now a \"representative\" with a cushy job in the capital.  If not, but instead you set some vote threshold that the candidates have to get before becoming a representative, then your basis idea gets trashed and all the good things about it go down in drain as then there will be people without representation.  Most of the problems you can fix by using a proportional voting system. If you elect the 435 (or whatever) representatives so that their proportions in the parliament represents the number of votes their party got in the election and the people from the party who get to be the representatives, are those who got the most votes in that party, then you get pretty much all the benefits of your system. You won't have a person as your representative, but a combination of the party and the person In the next election you can vote the same party's different candidate or a different party altogether.  edit. In principle you could modify the proportional system towards your system so that everyone's vote is recorded in the system (but kept secret). Any day you like, you walk to the voting place of your city and say that you want to change your vote. At that point one vote is deducted from the party that you voted before and given to some other party. If this forces a change in the parliament, then one MP there is fired and a new one takes his\/her place. So, you can change your \"representative\" whenever you like and there's no need for any set elections. The government just naturally collapses and a new takes its place, when enough voters have changed their mind.","human_ref_B":"First off, in the US you do have a representative, even if the candidate you support loses. The representative represents the people of a geographical area, not just the people that voted for them. That representative may not cast a vote in the legislature as you would, but they still represent you. It seems like this could still occur in the system that you propose.  It isn't very obvious what benefits your system offers over the existing system or other alternatives.   The representatives aren't bound to vote the same way as each voter would prefer. It seems like the obvious thing for each person to do to ensure that this doesn't happen would be nominate themselves as their representative, which would essentially be direct democracy with proxy voting.   If your complaint is that votes cast for losing candidates are effectively erased, a system with proportional representation would probably be simpler and has more real-world precidents.  What does your system of essentially transferable votes offer that makes it better?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":125.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"pnhrn0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: In a Representative Democracy, there should be no Winning or Losing in Elections. So, it is often taken for granted that the US (I will be using the US for this post, but this can be applied to any representative \"democratic\" body) that we have representative democracy.  We do not.  **If you \"vote\" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.**  In order to give people true voices in their politics, we should move to affirmational representation.  This would mean the following:  1. Elections are just periods in which you can select your representative. 2. Any representative is now a member of that body representing  and casting X # of votes. 3. For ease of discussion and debate (US House of Reps example) only the top 435 representatives sit in the house for debate.  Others can cast votes, but not debate.  4. Voting inside the body will thus be based on total votes.  For example, you may need 150,000,000+ votes to pass a bill in the House of Reps in the United States. 5. Non-voters could be considered \"okay with any\" and their representation could be split proportionally amongst all eligible. 6. A person election to say \"none of these\" would be a vote of no confidence, and thus \"against\" any bill that comes before the body. 7. Same restrictions on candidacy, term limits, etc. can apply is so chosen.  Example of how this would work:  1. You turn in a ballot with a person's name on it. 2. If they get enough votes to pass the minimum threshold (or not, maybe no threshold) is now your representative. 3. Every \"election\" you get to choose someone new, or the same person.  CMV: This would be an ACTUAL Representative Body.","c_root_id_A":"hcpebza","c_root_id_B":"hcpd2vf","created_at_utc_A":1631549195,"created_at_utc_B":1631548674,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What do you do with candidates that get 5 votes?   Do they still get paid, if so how much?  Do they still receive intelligence briefings??   Can they be put on committees? If so, how would that function?","human_ref_B":"First off, in the US you do have a representative, even if the candidate you support loses. The representative represents the people of a geographical area, not just the people that voted for them. That representative may not cast a vote in the legislature as you would, but they still represent you. It seems like this could still occur in the system that you propose.  It isn't very obvious what benefits your system offers over the existing system or other alternatives.   The representatives aren't bound to vote the same way as each voter would prefer. It seems like the obvious thing for each person to do to ensure that this doesn't happen would be nominate themselves as their representative, which would essentially be direct democracy with proxy voting.   If your complaint is that votes cast for losing candidates are effectively erased, a system with proportional representation would probably be simpler and has more real-world precidents.  What does your system of essentially transferable votes offer that makes it better?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":521.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"pnhrn0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: In a Representative Democracy, there should be no Winning or Losing in Elections. So, it is often taken for granted that the US (I will be using the US for this post, but this can be applied to any representative \"democratic\" body) that we have representative democracy.  We do not.  **If you \"vote\" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.**  In order to give people true voices in their politics, we should move to affirmational representation.  This would mean the following:  1. Elections are just periods in which you can select your representative. 2. Any representative is now a member of that body representing  and casting X # of votes. 3. For ease of discussion and debate (US House of Reps example) only the top 435 representatives sit in the house for debate.  Others can cast votes, but not debate.  4. Voting inside the body will thus be based on total votes.  For example, you may need 150,000,000+ votes to pass a bill in the House of Reps in the United States. 5. Non-voters could be considered \"okay with any\" and their representation could be split proportionally amongst all eligible. 6. A person election to say \"none of these\" would be a vote of no confidence, and thus \"against\" any bill that comes before the body. 7. Same restrictions on candidacy, term limits, etc. can apply is so chosen.  Example of how this would work:  1. You turn in a ballot with a person's name on it. 2. If they get enough votes to pass the minimum threshold (or not, maybe no threshold) is now your representative. 3. Every \"election\" you get to choose someone new, or the same person.  CMV: This would be an ACTUAL Representative Body.","c_root_id_A":"hcqi0uf","c_root_id_B":"hcpd2vf","created_at_utc_A":1631565373,"created_at_utc_B":1631548674,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Your intent from reading some of the comments seems to be that every individual should have a perfect 1-1 representation of their views within the legislative body. Which would necessitate that every single person become a politician because that is the only way to actually perfectly represent your views 100% in any possible politician. If you expect every person in government to actually do the work and deal with the legislative process responsibly by reading the bills presented. Unless you mean to say that not being able to debate also means that you cannot present legislation. So then you do not have a fully accurate depiction of your views because your views cannot be fully represented because legislation and changes you desire would not be possible to exist because your chosen representative( who would have to be yourself because that is the only way to get a 100% representation of your views) would not be able to actually present a bill. But if they could then it would mean that every single citizen then can present a bill. Then the entire process of actually getting through any bill would be a herculean task. Let alone the potential hundreds of thousands of bills each year.   But if we get to the point of a 1 to 1 representation to fully accurately representing every single person at 100% of their views. That is actually a direct democracy. Not a representative democracy. Because it becomes 1 vote to 1 person.","human_ref_B":"First off, in the US you do have a representative, even if the candidate you support loses. The representative represents the people of a geographical area, not just the people that voted for them. That representative may not cast a vote in the legislature as you would, but they still represent you. It seems like this could still occur in the system that you propose.  It isn't very obvious what benefits your system offers over the existing system or other alternatives.   The representatives aren't bound to vote the same way as each voter would prefer. It seems like the obvious thing for each person to do to ensure that this doesn't happen would be nominate themselves as their representative, which would essentially be direct democracy with proxy voting.   If your complaint is that votes cast for losing candidates are effectively erased, a system with proportional representation would probably be simpler and has more real-world precidents.  What does your system of essentially transferable votes offer that makes it better?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16699.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"pnhrn0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: In a Representative Democracy, there should be no Winning or Losing in Elections. So, it is often taken for granted that the US (I will be using the US for this post, but this can be applied to any representative \"democratic\" body) that we have representative democracy.  We do not.  **If you \"vote\" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.**  In order to give people true voices in their politics, we should move to affirmational representation.  This would mean the following:  1. Elections are just periods in which you can select your representative. 2. Any representative is now a member of that body representing  and casting X # of votes. 3. For ease of discussion and debate (US House of Reps example) only the top 435 representatives sit in the house for debate.  Others can cast votes, but not debate.  4. Voting inside the body will thus be based on total votes.  For example, you may need 150,000,000+ votes to pass a bill in the House of Reps in the United States. 5. Non-voters could be considered \"okay with any\" and their representation could be split proportionally amongst all eligible. 6. A person election to say \"none of these\" would be a vote of no confidence, and thus \"against\" any bill that comes before the body. 7. Same restrictions on candidacy, term limits, etc. can apply is so chosen.  Example of how this would work:  1. You turn in a ballot with a person's name on it. 2. If they get enough votes to pass the minimum threshold (or not, maybe no threshold) is now your representative. 3. Every \"election\" you get to choose someone new, or the same person.  CMV: This would be an ACTUAL Representative Body.","c_root_id_A":"hcpr36x","c_root_id_B":"hcqi0uf","created_at_utc_A":1631554444,"created_at_utc_B":1631565373,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This system is clever, but sadly, doesn't work. Believe me, I've been down this road.  To implement any coherent political strategy would take the massive coordination of elected representatives. Thus, the system of parties would inevitably emerge, and with it the coalitions of elected candidates all legally bound to vote for the same thing.   > If you \"vote\" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.  Here's another way to look at it. All it would take would be 51% (or 2\/3 depending on the votes necessary to pass a law) signing legally binding contracts to vote in unison, excluding the other 49% into voicelessness. This is **extremely** hard to prevent.","human_ref_B":"Your intent from reading some of the comments seems to be that every individual should have a perfect 1-1 representation of their views within the legislative body. Which would necessitate that every single person become a politician because that is the only way to actually perfectly represent your views 100% in any possible politician. If you expect every person in government to actually do the work and deal with the legislative process responsibly by reading the bills presented. Unless you mean to say that not being able to debate also means that you cannot present legislation. So then you do not have a fully accurate depiction of your views because your views cannot be fully represented because legislation and changes you desire would not be possible to exist because your chosen representative( who would have to be yourself because that is the only way to get a 100% representation of your views) would not be able to actually present a bill. But if they could then it would mean that every single citizen then can present a bill. Then the entire process of actually getting through any bill would be a herculean task. Let alone the potential hundreds of thousands of bills each year.   But if we get to the point of a 1 to 1 representation to fully accurately representing every single person at 100% of their views. That is actually a direct democracy. Not a representative democracy. Because it becomes 1 vote to 1 person.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10929.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"nglxx2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Housing Prices will never be affordable in the U.S. for the next 20-40 years, if ever again. I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down. Houses in most major metros where most of the U.S. population lives, housing prices are increasing at rates faster than what incomes can keep up with. This is causing a lot of financial hardship; especially among young workers and working class people, to the point it is locking out an entire generation and class of people out of home ownership. Furthermore, I only see overwhelming incentives to keep prices high, and for those prices to keep increasing. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a house in my lifetime, or at least not for a few decades. Here are the reasons why  1. Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies 2. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies 3. Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices. 4. The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed. 5. Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap. 6. Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  I'm bummed out that houses will probably never come back down in my lifetime.","c_root_id_A":"gyrluhz","c_root_id_B":"gyroeij","created_at_utc_A":1621471768,"created_at_utc_B":1621473058,"score_A":11,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"A big part of why housing prices are skyrocketing is because we're seeing the consequences of a decade of decreased new home construction. The number of new homes being built plummeted during the Great Recession and never quite recovered prior to the pandemic. Combine this historic shortage of new homes with the absolute thrashing that global supply chains took during COVID and the resulting shortage of raw materials, and the current housing crunch starts to make a lot more sense.   It may take another several years, but I expect that as the global supply chain gets untangled, we'll see a rise in new home construction as companies try to capitalize on this market frenzy. Once that happens, the supply of homes will steadily increase, and the market will settle down and return to an equilibrium. Every bull market eventually settles down and equalizes, and there's no reason to think this one is any different.","human_ref_B":"People are buying them, so by definition they're affordable. When houses become unaffordable, the prices will lower until someone can afford them. Also, people will stop flocking to HCOL cities, especially with more jobs being done remotely. Sure, it's great to live by the ocean or the mountains, but those things are a luxury. If you can do the same job from Santa Fe or Topeka, you'll be able to afford that house you want.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1290.0,"score_ratio":2.1818181818}
+{"post_id":"nglxx2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Housing Prices will never be affordable in the U.S. for the next 20-40 years, if ever again. I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down. Houses in most major metros where most of the U.S. population lives, housing prices are increasing at rates faster than what incomes can keep up with. This is causing a lot of financial hardship; especially among young workers and working class people, to the point it is locking out an entire generation and class of people out of home ownership. Furthermore, I only see overwhelming incentives to keep prices high, and for those prices to keep increasing. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a house in my lifetime, or at least not for a few decades. Here are the reasons why  1. Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies 2. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies 3. Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices. 4. The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed. 5. Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap. 6. Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  I'm bummed out that houses will probably never come back down in my lifetime.","c_root_id_A":"gyro1me","c_root_id_B":"gyroeij","created_at_utc_A":1621472874,"created_at_utc_B":1621473058,"score_A":5,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"The market for many products in the US functionally runs on a nation-wide equilibrium. Not so for housing - location is a critical component for evaluating a house.  This means that housing markets are much more regionally diverse than most markets. Everything you say is pretty much spot on *for certain markets*, but not at all true in others. There are still plenty of places in the US with very affordable housing, if you are willing to look there.  Further, the significant move over the last year towards remote working is likely to lead to previously disparate markets beginning to compete with each other. This will somewhat lower prices in high Cost-of-Living areas, and somewhat raise prices in low CoL areas, but there are more low than high areas so the new equilibrium in low CoL areas will still be *way* below previous San Francisco (*eg*) prices. And living in those areas will be more viable to you (generic) than it used to be.","human_ref_B":"People are buying them, so by definition they're affordable. When houses become unaffordable, the prices will lower until someone can afford them. Also, people will stop flocking to HCOL cities, especially with more jobs being done remotely. Sure, it's great to live by the ocean or the mountains, but those things are a luxury. If you can do the same job from Santa Fe or Topeka, you'll be able to afford that house you want.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":184.0,"score_ratio":4.8}
+{"post_id":"nglxx2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Housing Prices will never be affordable in the U.S. for the next 20-40 years, if ever again. I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down. Houses in most major metros where most of the U.S. population lives, housing prices are increasing at rates faster than what incomes can keep up with. This is causing a lot of financial hardship; especially among young workers and working class people, to the point it is locking out an entire generation and class of people out of home ownership. Furthermore, I only see overwhelming incentives to keep prices high, and for those prices to keep increasing. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a house in my lifetime, or at least not for a few decades. Here are the reasons why  1. Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies 2. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies 3. Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices. 4. The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed. 5. Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap. 6. Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  I'm bummed out that houses will probably never come back down in my lifetime.","c_root_id_A":"gyrluhz","c_root_id_B":"gyrpx75","created_at_utc_A":1621471768,"created_at_utc_B":1621473830,"score_A":11,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"A big part of why housing prices are skyrocketing is because we're seeing the consequences of a decade of decreased new home construction. The number of new homes being built plummeted during the Great Recession and never quite recovered prior to the pandemic. Combine this historic shortage of new homes with the absolute thrashing that global supply chains took during COVID and the resulting shortage of raw materials, and the current housing crunch starts to make a lot more sense.   It may take another several years, but I expect that as the global supply chain gets untangled, we'll see a rise in new home construction as companies try to capitalize on this market frenzy. Once that happens, the supply of homes will steadily increase, and the market will settle down and return to an equilibrium. Every bull market eventually settles down and equalizes, and there's no reason to think this one is any different.","human_ref_B":"1 is overstated.  It\u2019s *maybe* a factor in a couple of urban markets, but even there the foreign buyers are something of a boogie man.  2 shouldn\u2019t affect housing costs overall\u2014REITs and banks are in the business of making money from rent, not from appreciation.   So even if they buy houses, they will put them on the rental market which will keep rents lower.  4 isn\u2019t a real problem.   No place in the US is \u201cfull,\u201d except maybe Manhattan.   Even if land in urban centers is already developed, it can almost always be redeveloped to be more dense.  Heck, some cities seeing huge housing spikes haven\u2019t even exceeded their peak populations reached in the 1960s yet.  5 also shouldn\u2019t be a problem in a healthy market.  6 is sort of right, but also overstated.  Material costs have skyrocketed in the last year, but that\u2019s a new phenomena driven by pandemic supply chains and it should sort itself out over a year or so.   The bigger reason that properties cost so much to build is the regulatory burden that cities put on their construction.  Here is a great post from an LA architect breaking down all the factors that mean only luxury property gets built..  And he doesn\u2019t even address simply how long it takes to get permission to build, time that adds cost.  Which leave #3.  That is your real sticking point\u2014people who refuse to make it easier to actually build the housing necessary to meet the demand.    It\u2019s not just older generations who don\u2019t like density.  It\u2019s any number of people who each have their reasons that seem totally sensible in their own mind, but that add up to prevent the necessary housing from being built.    The root problem isnt even any of them in particular.   It\u2019s that our planning and permitting system gives existing residents at a hyper local level a nearly infinite toolkit to stymie new construction.   The zoning codes make it impossible to build anything without variances.  The variance process gives people an opportunity to sign off on specific design choices.   Random local \u201cactivists\u201d basically extort developers..  People sue to protect parking lots and try to say that laundromats are historic.  It\u2019s bonkers.  The net result is that not enough is getting built.   US cities have failed to meet housing demand with new construction for decades.   What few properties are built are concentrated in those areas where the profit margin is highest and where the local residents lack the same economic and political clout as their richer NIMBY neighbors, which just gives those NIMBYs more ammo to argue against any construction.  What brings housing prices down is changes in policy that allow houses to be built.  And policy changes because the situation becomes so untenable that politicians realize they might actually lose votes over it.   Which means cutting through excuses like \u201cforeign investors\u201d or \u201cluxury developers\u201d or \u201cfinite land\u201d and keeping attention focused on the root of the problem, which is simply making it easier to actually build the housing to meet the demand.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2062.0,"score_ratio":2.1818181818}
+{"post_id":"nglxx2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Housing Prices will never be affordable in the U.S. for the next 20-40 years, if ever again. I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down. Houses in most major metros where most of the U.S. population lives, housing prices are increasing at rates faster than what incomes can keep up with. This is causing a lot of financial hardship; especially among young workers and working class people, to the point it is locking out an entire generation and class of people out of home ownership. Furthermore, I only see overwhelming incentives to keep prices high, and for those prices to keep increasing. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a house in my lifetime, or at least not for a few decades. Here are the reasons why  1. Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies 2. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies 3. Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices. 4. The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed. 5. Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap. 6. Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  I'm bummed out that houses will probably never come back down in my lifetime.","c_root_id_A":"gyro1me","c_root_id_B":"gyrpx75","created_at_utc_A":1621472874,"created_at_utc_B":1621473830,"score_A":5,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"The market for many products in the US functionally runs on a nation-wide equilibrium. Not so for housing - location is a critical component for evaluating a house.  This means that housing markets are much more regionally diverse than most markets. Everything you say is pretty much spot on *for certain markets*, but not at all true in others. There are still plenty of places in the US with very affordable housing, if you are willing to look there.  Further, the significant move over the last year towards remote working is likely to lead to previously disparate markets beginning to compete with each other. This will somewhat lower prices in high Cost-of-Living areas, and somewhat raise prices in low CoL areas, but there are more low than high areas so the new equilibrium in low CoL areas will still be *way* below previous San Francisco (*eg*) prices. And living in those areas will be more viable to you (generic) than it used to be.","human_ref_B":"1 is overstated.  It\u2019s *maybe* a factor in a couple of urban markets, but even there the foreign buyers are something of a boogie man.  2 shouldn\u2019t affect housing costs overall\u2014REITs and banks are in the business of making money from rent, not from appreciation.   So even if they buy houses, they will put them on the rental market which will keep rents lower.  4 isn\u2019t a real problem.   No place in the US is \u201cfull,\u201d except maybe Manhattan.   Even if land in urban centers is already developed, it can almost always be redeveloped to be more dense.  Heck, some cities seeing huge housing spikes haven\u2019t even exceeded their peak populations reached in the 1960s yet.  5 also shouldn\u2019t be a problem in a healthy market.  6 is sort of right, but also overstated.  Material costs have skyrocketed in the last year, but that\u2019s a new phenomena driven by pandemic supply chains and it should sort itself out over a year or so.   The bigger reason that properties cost so much to build is the regulatory burden that cities put on their construction.  Here is a great post from an LA architect breaking down all the factors that mean only luxury property gets built..  And he doesn\u2019t even address simply how long it takes to get permission to build, time that adds cost.  Which leave #3.  That is your real sticking point\u2014people who refuse to make it easier to actually build the housing necessary to meet the demand.    It\u2019s not just older generations who don\u2019t like density.  It\u2019s any number of people who each have their reasons that seem totally sensible in their own mind, but that add up to prevent the necessary housing from being built.    The root problem isnt even any of them in particular.   It\u2019s that our planning and permitting system gives existing residents at a hyper local level a nearly infinite toolkit to stymie new construction.   The zoning codes make it impossible to build anything without variances.  The variance process gives people an opportunity to sign off on specific design choices.   Random local \u201cactivists\u201d basically extort developers..  People sue to protect parking lots and try to say that laundromats are historic.  It\u2019s bonkers.  The net result is that not enough is getting built.   US cities have failed to meet housing demand with new construction for decades.   What few properties are built are concentrated in those areas where the profit margin is highest and where the local residents lack the same economic and political clout as their richer NIMBY neighbors, which just gives those NIMBYs more ammo to argue against any construction.  What brings housing prices down is changes in policy that allow houses to be built.  And policy changes because the situation becomes so untenable that politicians realize they might actually lose votes over it.   Which means cutting through excuses like \u201cforeign investors\u201d or \u201cluxury developers\u201d or \u201cfinite land\u201d and keeping attention focused on the root of the problem, which is simply making it easier to actually build the housing to meet the demand.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":956.0,"score_ratio":4.8}
+{"post_id":"nglxx2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Housing Prices will never be affordable in the U.S. for the next 20-40 years, if ever again. I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down. Houses in most major metros where most of the U.S. population lives, housing prices are increasing at rates faster than what incomes can keep up with. This is causing a lot of financial hardship; especially among young workers and working class people, to the point it is locking out an entire generation and class of people out of home ownership. Furthermore, I only see overwhelming incentives to keep prices high, and for those prices to keep increasing. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a house in my lifetime, or at least not for a few decades. Here are the reasons why  1. Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies 2. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies 3. Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices. 4. The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed. 5. Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap. 6. Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  I'm bummed out that houses will probably never come back down in my lifetime.","c_root_id_A":"gyru11y","c_root_id_B":"gyrluhz","created_at_utc_A":1621475893,"created_at_utc_B":1621471768,"score_A":13,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"The obvious response is that housing is affordable in all the locations with a low cost of living, where supply outstrips demand. Here's a perfectly livable house for less than $25k. The catch being, of course, that it's in some dinky town in West Virginia, rather than NYC or SF.","human_ref_B":"A big part of why housing prices are skyrocketing is because we're seeing the consequences of a decade of decreased new home construction. The number of new homes being built plummeted during the Great Recession and never quite recovered prior to the pandemic. Combine this historic shortage of new homes with the absolute thrashing that global supply chains took during COVID and the resulting shortage of raw materials, and the current housing crunch starts to make a lot more sense.   It may take another several years, but I expect that as the global supply chain gets untangled, we'll see a rise in new home construction as companies try to capitalize on this market frenzy. Once that happens, the supply of homes will steadily increase, and the market will settle down and return to an equilibrium. Every bull market eventually settles down and equalizes, and there's no reason to think this one is any different.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4125.0,"score_ratio":1.1818181818}
+{"post_id":"nglxx2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Housing Prices will never be affordable in the U.S. for the next 20-40 years, if ever again. I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down. Houses in most major metros where most of the U.S. population lives, housing prices are increasing at rates faster than what incomes can keep up with. This is causing a lot of financial hardship; especially among young workers and working class people, to the point it is locking out an entire generation and class of people out of home ownership. Furthermore, I only see overwhelming incentives to keep prices high, and for those prices to keep increasing. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a house in my lifetime, or at least not for a few decades. Here are the reasons why  1. Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies 2. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies 3. Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices. 4. The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed. 5. Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap. 6. Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  I'm bummed out that houses will probably never come back down in my lifetime.","c_root_id_A":"gyro1me","c_root_id_B":"gyru11y","created_at_utc_A":1621472874,"created_at_utc_B":1621475893,"score_A":5,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"The market for many products in the US functionally runs on a nation-wide equilibrium. Not so for housing - location is a critical component for evaluating a house.  This means that housing markets are much more regionally diverse than most markets. Everything you say is pretty much spot on *for certain markets*, but not at all true in others. There are still plenty of places in the US with very affordable housing, if you are willing to look there.  Further, the significant move over the last year towards remote working is likely to lead to previously disparate markets beginning to compete with each other. This will somewhat lower prices in high Cost-of-Living areas, and somewhat raise prices in low CoL areas, but there are more low than high areas so the new equilibrium in low CoL areas will still be *way* below previous San Francisco (*eg*) prices. And living in those areas will be more viable to you (generic) than it used to be.","human_ref_B":"The obvious response is that housing is affordable in all the locations with a low cost of living, where supply outstrips demand. Here's a perfectly livable house for less than $25k. The catch being, of course, that it's in some dinky town in West Virginia, rather than NYC or SF.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3019.0,"score_ratio":2.6}
+{"post_id":"nglxx2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Housing Prices will never be affordable in the U.S. for the next 20-40 years, if ever again. I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down. Houses in most major metros where most of the U.S. population lives, housing prices are increasing at rates faster than what incomes can keep up with. This is causing a lot of financial hardship; especially among young workers and working class people, to the point it is locking out an entire generation and class of people out of home ownership. Furthermore, I only see overwhelming incentives to keep prices high, and for those prices to keep increasing. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a house in my lifetime, or at least not for a few decades. Here are the reasons why  1. Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies 2. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies 3. Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices. 4. The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed. 5. Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap. 6. Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  I'm bummed out that houses will probably never come back down in my lifetime.","c_root_id_A":"gysd1qo","c_root_id_B":"gyrwbjk","created_at_utc_A":1621486216,"created_at_utc_B":1621477055,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed.  the US has an absurd amount of land. it's a handful of highly populated areas where land is expensive.  tech advances = more dense living in these areas, as well as better transportation. better work from home\/work remote.","human_ref_B":"> I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down.   Increasing housing density by changing urban planning and zoning guidelines.  > Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies  This can be legally controlled pretty easily, the US just isn't inclined to do it right now. Mainly because the political system does not represent most home buyers and instead represents the people turning huge profits from these foreign trades.  > Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies  Radically increasing the supply by changing density restrictions would crash the market for housing and drive them out of these investments.  > Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices.  They won't be alive forever and the impending generation of elderly people is smaller than the boomers.  > The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed.  The US has plenty of land for its population. It's laughably diffuse from a population density standpoint. There's no reason that new urban centers can't develop as population increases.  > Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap.  This will ultimately create significant unmet demand for higher density housing, increasing political pressure to allow it to be developed.  > Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  Many cities are already challenging these past assumptions and changing these laws and guidelines. Ex. Minneapolis recently banned single family zoning through the whole city.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9161.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"nglxx2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Housing Prices will never be affordable in the U.S. for the next 20-40 years, if ever again. I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down. Houses in most major metros where most of the U.S. population lives, housing prices are increasing at rates faster than what incomes can keep up with. This is causing a lot of financial hardship; especially among young workers and working class people, to the point it is locking out an entire generation and class of people out of home ownership. Furthermore, I only see overwhelming incentives to keep prices high, and for those prices to keep increasing. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a house in my lifetime, or at least not for a few decades. Here are the reasons why  1. Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies 2. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies 3. Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices. 4. The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed. 5. Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap. 6. Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  I'm bummed out that houses will probably never come back down in my lifetime.","c_root_id_A":"gysxq03","c_root_id_B":"gyrwbjk","created_at_utc_A":1621503363,"created_at_utc_B":1621477055,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Idk how old you are but im 26 and just bought my house a few months ago for 220k. Look into fha and usda loan programs and (this is important) look in areas that are cheaper even if you have to move states. You arent going to find affordable housing in cali but move to north dakota or minnisota and you can get 10acres and a house for 200k (my sister in law just did this) living in the city is expensive and always is now more than ever so start looking to places that are cheaper because once you have 1 house you can sell it for a downpayment on a better one 10 years down the road","human_ref_B":"> I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down.   Increasing housing density by changing urban planning and zoning guidelines.  > Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies  This can be legally controlled pretty easily, the US just isn't inclined to do it right now. Mainly because the political system does not represent most home buyers and instead represents the people turning huge profits from these foreign trades.  > Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies  Radically increasing the supply by changing density restrictions would crash the market for housing and drive them out of these investments.  > Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices.  They won't be alive forever and the impending generation of elderly people is smaller than the boomers.  > The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed.  The US has plenty of land for its population. It's laughably diffuse from a population density standpoint. There's no reason that new urban centers can't develop as population increases.  > Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap.  This will ultimately create significant unmet demand for higher density housing, increasing political pressure to allow it to be developed.  > Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  Many cities are already challenging these past assumptions and changing these laws and guidelines. Ex. Minneapolis recently banned single family zoning through the whole city.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26308.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"nglxx2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Housing Prices will never be affordable in the U.S. for the next 20-40 years, if ever again. I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down. Houses in most major metros where most of the U.S. population lives, housing prices are increasing at rates faster than what incomes can keep up with. This is causing a lot of financial hardship; especially among young workers and working class people, to the point it is locking out an entire generation and class of people out of home ownership. Furthermore, I only see overwhelming incentives to keep prices high, and for those prices to keep increasing. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a house in my lifetime, or at least not for a few decades. Here are the reasons why  1. Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies 2. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies 3. Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices. 4. The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed. 5. Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap. 6. Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  I'm bummed out that houses will probably never come back down in my lifetime.","c_root_id_A":"gyuexf7","c_root_id_B":"gyrwbjk","created_at_utc_A":1621530912,"created_at_utc_B":1621477055,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> 1:  Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies  Evidence please.  > 2:  Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies  Again, evidence please.  Also, it's not like real estate investment trusts and big banks haven't existed for decades prior, why is this suddenly only an issue now?  > 3:  Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices.  Again, evidence, and that's the thing about older generations: they die off.  Also, if you want to look at people opposing new developments, look at San Francisco (one of the worst housing markets in the nation), where people oppose new developments for every reason from \"too many white people might move in\" to \"it might cause bars to open up in the neighborhood\".  Do you really think a bunch of boomers are the ones causing SF's housing crisis?  If so, shouldn't this crisis exist everywhere?  > 4:  The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed.  The US has an insane amount of land: you could fit the entire *earth's* populace in Texas with a decent amount of space for each person.  The US ranks #145 in terms of population density in the world (https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density)  We are so far away from running out of land it's not even funny.  Also, as work from home becomes more common and acceptable, the need to live near urban centers will be decreased for a large segment of the populace.  > 5:  Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap.  Housing costs should increase: it's called inflation.  As for the wage gap, that's controversial.  https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/the-myth-of-wage-stagnation-11558126174  https:\/\/www.brookings.edu\/blog\/up-front\/2019\/09\/10\/are-wages-rising-falling-or-stagnating\/  > 6:  Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  This seems an odd one.  Do you think developers can't think of new materials to build homes with?  Limited resources do not exponentially go up in cost.  Hell, oil now is cheaper than it was 35 years ago (adjusted for inflation).  But as someone already pointed out, the most damning evidence is that despite all the sky-is-falling rhetoric about how nobody can afford homes now, home ownership rates are *higher* now than they were 30 years ago.  https:\/\/www.statista.com\/statistics\/184902\/homeownership-rate-in-the-us-since-2003\/","human_ref_B":"> I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down.   Increasing housing density by changing urban planning and zoning guidelines.  > Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies  This can be legally controlled pretty easily, the US just isn't inclined to do it right now. Mainly because the political system does not represent most home buyers and instead represents the people turning huge profits from these foreign trades.  > Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies  Radically increasing the supply by changing density restrictions would crash the market for housing and drive them out of these investments.  > Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices.  They won't be alive forever and the impending generation of elderly people is smaller than the boomers.  > The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed.  The US has plenty of land for its population. It's laughably diffuse from a population density standpoint. There's no reason that new urban centers can't develop as population increases.  > Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap.  This will ultimately create significant unmet demand for higher density housing, increasing political pressure to allow it to be developed.  > Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  Many cities are already challenging these past assumptions and changing these laws and guidelines. Ex. Minneapolis recently banned single family zoning through the whole city.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":53857.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"nglxx2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Housing Prices will never be affordable in the U.S. for the next 20-40 years, if ever again. I don't see how housing prices are ever going to come down. Houses in most major metros where most of the U.S. population lives, housing prices are increasing at rates faster than what incomes can keep up with. This is causing a lot of financial hardship; especially among young workers and working class people, to the point it is locking out an entire generation and class of people out of home ownership. Furthermore, I only see overwhelming incentives to keep prices high, and for those prices to keep increasing. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a house in my lifetime, or at least not for a few decades. Here are the reasons why  1. Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies 2. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies 3. Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices. 4. The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed. 5. Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap. 6. Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  I'm bummed out that houses will probably never come back down in my lifetime.","c_root_id_A":"gyuexf7","c_root_id_B":"gyt4e3g","created_at_utc_A":1621530912,"created_at_utc_B":1621508967,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> 1:  Rich Foreign buyers are buying up property and out competing people who reside in local economies  Evidence please.  > 2:  Real Estate Investment Trusts and Big Banks within the U.S. are also out competing people residing in local economies  Again, evidence please.  Also, it's not like real estate investment trusts and big banks haven't existed for decades prior, why is this suddenly only an issue now?  > 3:  Older Generations are opposing any and all forms of urban density that would increase housing supply in a meaningful amount to lower prices.  Again, evidence, and that's the thing about older generations: they die off.  Also, if you want to look at people opposing new developments, look at San Francisco (one of the worst housing markets in the nation), where people oppose new developments for every reason from \"too many white people might move in\" to \"it might cause bars to open up in the neighborhood\".  Do you really think a bunch of boomers are the ones causing SF's housing crisis?  If so, shouldn't this crisis exist everywhere?  > 4:  The U.S. Population keeps increasing; but the land the U.S. has is finite. Most land that is easily assessable to most people living in urban centers is already developed.  The US has an insane amount of land: you could fit the entire *earth's* populace in Texas with a decent amount of space for each person.  The US ranks #145 in terms of population density in the world (https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density)  We are so far away from running out of land it's not even funny.  Also, as work from home becomes more common and acceptable, the need to live near urban centers will be decreased for a large segment of the populace.  > 5:  Wages continue to stagnate despite increased housing costs; furthering the gap.  Housing costs should increase: it's called inflation.  As for the wage gap, that's controversial.  https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/the-myth-of-wage-stagnation-11558126174  https:\/\/www.brookings.edu\/blog\/up-front\/2019\/09\/10\/are-wages-rising-falling-or-stagnating\/  > 6:  Materials to build homes and laws\/regulations for lot sizes make it expensive to build homes; therefore the homes and condos being built are \"luxury\" properties.  This seems an odd one.  Do you think developers can't think of new materials to build homes with?  Limited resources do not exponentially go up in cost.  Hell, oil now is cheaper than it was 35 years ago (adjusted for inflation).  But as someone already pointed out, the most damning evidence is that despite all the sky-is-falling rhetoric about how nobody can afford homes now, home ownership rates are *higher* now than they were 30 years ago.  https:\/\/www.statista.com\/statistics\/184902\/homeownership-rate-in-the-us-since-2003\/","human_ref_B":"You've named really solid reasons why housing prices tend to increase, and certainly those could present an impediment. At the same time, I don't think it's as bleak as you're painting it -- here's why:  * Telecommuting is in the process of becoming radically more normalized -- and it seems likely that we will (finally) see significant infrastructure investment, which tends to extend the commutable area for cities. * While renters typically have less say in local government than home-owners, state legislation supersedes local legislation, meaning political pressure can certainly be brought to bear by the larger, disadvantaged group.  So my take is, home prices come down when:  * Absurdly high-priced markets crash in value due to falls in demand, based on telecommuting and high speed rail. Looking at you, NYC. * State governments (or the federal government) withdraw funding from townships that do not participate in densification programs. E.g., San Francisco needs to build some fucking high rises or says goodbye to its $150M a year in state funding. * Alternatively, add a *federal* single-family-home real estate tax that scales with the value of the home, and funds investment in affordable housing. This will push the value of expensive homes down (because the added tax burden makes them relatively more expensive), and provide an incentive for middle aged folks to balance the desire for a nest egg against the desire for affordable living for the 10 years *until* they retire.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21945.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6v8elm","c_root_id_B":"d6v1vyy","created_at_utc_A":1472074601,"created_at_utc_B":1472066661,"score_A":70,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"The Non-aggression Principle (NAP) that libertarians espouse leads *directly* to anarcho-capitalism when consistently applied. Libertarian philosophy is deontological: No Stealing, Period. And taxes are theft. Therefore taxation is never justified. Therefore all government, which must rely on taxation, is by definition illegitimate. QED.   Even if government were somehow voluntarily funded, government is a monopoly on the use of force. It must necessarily initiate force against any competitors who try to take the government's place. Therefore the government necessarily violates the NAP, and is illegitimate. QED.   Any \"minarchist\" libertarian is always vulnerable to attack from anarcho-capitalists (ancaps), who can argue that they are applying libertarian principles inconsistently. And the ancaps are right. If taxation (theft) is ever justified from a consequentialist point of view (as opposed to the deontological argument against it), i.e. if we can tax \"for the greater good,\" then that opens the door to liberalism\/progressivism\/socialism. It is pretty much an indisputable fact that a dollar in the pocket of a rich man produces less happiness for him than the same dollar in a homeless person's pocket. Why not redistribute, at least a little bit? The minarchist is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and will have to double down on libertarian principles in order to defend against progressive views of government. That means they will be driven in into the ancap camp.   So in conclusion, people are right to ascribe anarcho-capitalism to more mainstream libertarians because it is the logical consequence of their beliefs.   I will concede however that it is logically possible for a purely utilitarian\/consequentialist libertarian to exist, who argues for deregulation and free markets based purely on their supposed benefits to the greater good, and not on any inherent value of liberty (as defined by the NAP). However, I don't think that any such libertarians exist, or at least I've never come across one (if you know any please point them out). The NAP is central to their belief system, kind of like how belief that Christ is the Lord and Savior is central to the Christian belief system. The utilitarian arguments for the free market are secondary, and the libertarian can always retreat to the NAP if they are challenged. Similarly, a Christian may deploy Pascal's Wager as an argument for believing in God, but that's not the real reason they believe and if challenged, they can retreat to their core faith.   The core faith of libertarians is the NAP. And the NAP leads to anarcho-capitalism. If anarcho-capitalism is crazy, then mainstream\/unprincipled libertarianism is also crazy. QED.   Note: I have some familiarity with libertarians since I used to be one. And I was led to anarcho-capitalism based on my study of libertarian theorists such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Herman-Hoppe, and Walter Block. That was a long time ago and I am a progressive now, an anarcho-communist\/socialist. So I don't think anarchism is crazy, just specifically the anarcho-capitalist variety.   EDIT: soullessgingerfck changed my view here.","human_ref_B":"I only think you are half-right. I think Democrats do this based on the idea they are anarcho-capitalists, but Republicans do this based on they are corporate patron-less individuals who are soft on crime.   Unfortunately, the crux of Libertarian ideology is economic. It is a vehicle for economic conservatives who are supporters of sexual freedom, drug legalization, and a hands-off foreign policy to not be incorporated into the Democratic party.   While Hillary Clinton is hawkish, hard on crime, and a bit baby-boomer in her late-blooming support of LGBT rights, the party platform is very liberal and incorporates everything in the Libertarian platform besides the economic conservatism.   Liberals tend to think much of the US' current problems stemmed from economic deregulation in industries with inelastic demand and\/or high access to cash flow. There is evidence for this: the 2009 financial crisis was a result of easy access to home loans, lenient rules upon risky assets, and the fact commercial banking and investment banking were using the same cash pool. There is also evidence that economic inequality is exacerbated by our lenient tax structure towards capital gains and the removal of the middleman, a side effect of the internet and globalization. There is also evidence that we are losing the fight against global warming because we were not strict ENOUGH with environmental regulation in the seventies when we had the chance and liberal enough with clean energy investment when the head start would be paying dividends now.  Libertarians have failed to define themselves: they have often based their platform upon the force of personality of their candidate. Is it really Democrats' fault that they define Libertarians by the people who Libertarians put up as their intellectual standard-bearers: Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek? I think it is defensible to think that the rhetorical breadth of the Libertarian party is temporary: that it is a result of Gary Johnson being a protest candidate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7940.0,"score_ratio":3.0434782609}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6v8elm","c_root_id_B":"d6v5oh2","created_at_utc_A":1472074601,"created_at_utc_B":1472071214,"score_A":70,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"The Non-aggression Principle (NAP) that libertarians espouse leads *directly* to anarcho-capitalism when consistently applied. Libertarian philosophy is deontological: No Stealing, Period. And taxes are theft. Therefore taxation is never justified. Therefore all government, which must rely on taxation, is by definition illegitimate. QED.   Even if government were somehow voluntarily funded, government is a monopoly on the use of force. It must necessarily initiate force against any competitors who try to take the government's place. Therefore the government necessarily violates the NAP, and is illegitimate. QED.   Any \"minarchist\" libertarian is always vulnerable to attack from anarcho-capitalists (ancaps), who can argue that they are applying libertarian principles inconsistently. And the ancaps are right. If taxation (theft) is ever justified from a consequentialist point of view (as opposed to the deontological argument against it), i.e. if we can tax \"for the greater good,\" then that opens the door to liberalism\/progressivism\/socialism. It is pretty much an indisputable fact that a dollar in the pocket of a rich man produces less happiness for him than the same dollar in a homeless person's pocket. Why not redistribute, at least a little bit? The minarchist is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and will have to double down on libertarian principles in order to defend against progressive views of government. That means they will be driven in into the ancap camp.   So in conclusion, people are right to ascribe anarcho-capitalism to more mainstream libertarians because it is the logical consequence of their beliefs.   I will concede however that it is logically possible for a purely utilitarian\/consequentialist libertarian to exist, who argues for deregulation and free markets based purely on their supposed benefits to the greater good, and not on any inherent value of liberty (as defined by the NAP). However, I don't think that any such libertarians exist, or at least I've never come across one (if you know any please point them out). The NAP is central to their belief system, kind of like how belief that Christ is the Lord and Savior is central to the Christian belief system. The utilitarian arguments for the free market are secondary, and the libertarian can always retreat to the NAP if they are challenged. Similarly, a Christian may deploy Pascal's Wager as an argument for believing in God, but that's not the real reason they believe and if challenged, they can retreat to their core faith.   The core faith of libertarians is the NAP. And the NAP leads to anarcho-capitalism. If anarcho-capitalism is crazy, then mainstream\/unprincipled libertarianism is also crazy. QED.   Note: I have some familiarity with libertarians since I used to be one. And I was led to anarcho-capitalism based on my study of libertarian theorists such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Herman-Hoppe, and Walter Block. That was a long time ago and I am a progressive now, an anarcho-communist\/socialist. So I don't think anarchism is crazy, just specifically the anarcho-capitalist variety.   EDIT: soullessgingerfck changed my view here.","human_ref_B":">But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians. I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Let's suppose an individual's first introduction to the Libertarian party was the Libertarian Debate in Orlando earlier this year. Let's say they were watching at this point. Here's a summary of the next few minutes:  Q: Would you make certain drugs illegal for children (even though they support legalization in general)?  Answers:   * Enthusiastic no. People simply wouldn't give drugs to children.   * Says drugs will not realistically be legalized for children. Sidesteps question.   * Yes, we have obligation to protect children. (Mix of boos and cheers from crowd)   * Long answer that boils down to \"no\". (Generally positive response from crowd)   * No, problem is not with seller of drug, but with parents. (Positive response again)  Q: Would you sign the Civil Rights Act of '64, which ended discrimination in the public and private sectors?  Answers:   * Yes (Mostly boos)   * Only prohibit government discrimination (Cheers)   * Prohibit gov't discrimination. Private discrimination is tough decision.   * It didn't completely end discrimination (non-answer)   * Repeal forced discrimination only. No prohibitions (Cheers)  Q: Should driver's licenses be required?  Answers:   * Hell no! (Cheers)   * No (Cheers)   * No (Cheers)   * No! What's next? Toast licenses?!?! (Cheers)   * Yes. (Boos)  Could you really fault somebody who walked away thinking that those positions were fairly mainstream libertarian? I don't think it's unreasonable for a spectator to assume that the majority of candidates and audience members at the convention were fairly representative of the party\/ideology as a whole - just as I wouldn't fault anybody who thought the positions endorsed at the Democratic or Republican debates\/conventions were mainstream for their respective party.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3387.0,"score_ratio":3.0434782609}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6v8elm","c_root_id_B":"d6v6d6b","created_at_utc_A":1472074601,"created_at_utc_B":1472072038,"score_A":70,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"The Non-aggression Principle (NAP) that libertarians espouse leads *directly* to anarcho-capitalism when consistently applied. Libertarian philosophy is deontological: No Stealing, Period. And taxes are theft. Therefore taxation is never justified. Therefore all government, which must rely on taxation, is by definition illegitimate. QED.   Even if government were somehow voluntarily funded, government is a monopoly on the use of force. It must necessarily initiate force against any competitors who try to take the government's place. Therefore the government necessarily violates the NAP, and is illegitimate. QED.   Any \"minarchist\" libertarian is always vulnerable to attack from anarcho-capitalists (ancaps), who can argue that they are applying libertarian principles inconsistently. And the ancaps are right. If taxation (theft) is ever justified from a consequentialist point of view (as opposed to the deontological argument against it), i.e. if we can tax \"for the greater good,\" then that opens the door to liberalism\/progressivism\/socialism. It is pretty much an indisputable fact that a dollar in the pocket of a rich man produces less happiness for him than the same dollar in a homeless person's pocket. Why not redistribute, at least a little bit? The minarchist is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and will have to double down on libertarian principles in order to defend against progressive views of government. That means they will be driven in into the ancap camp.   So in conclusion, people are right to ascribe anarcho-capitalism to more mainstream libertarians because it is the logical consequence of their beliefs.   I will concede however that it is logically possible for a purely utilitarian\/consequentialist libertarian to exist, who argues for deregulation and free markets based purely on their supposed benefits to the greater good, and not on any inherent value of liberty (as defined by the NAP). However, I don't think that any such libertarians exist, or at least I've never come across one (if you know any please point them out). The NAP is central to their belief system, kind of like how belief that Christ is the Lord and Savior is central to the Christian belief system. The utilitarian arguments for the free market are secondary, and the libertarian can always retreat to the NAP if they are challenged. Similarly, a Christian may deploy Pascal's Wager as an argument for believing in God, but that's not the real reason they believe and if challenged, they can retreat to their core faith.   The core faith of libertarians is the NAP. And the NAP leads to anarcho-capitalism. If anarcho-capitalism is crazy, then mainstream\/unprincipled libertarianism is also crazy. QED.   Note: I have some familiarity with libertarians since I used to be one. And I was led to anarcho-capitalism based on my study of libertarian theorists such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Herman-Hoppe, and Walter Block. That was a long time ago and I am a progressive now, an anarcho-communist\/socialist. So I don't think anarchism is crazy, just specifically the anarcho-capitalist variety.   EDIT: soullessgingerfck changed my view here.","human_ref_B":"I think to a certain degree that it's not so much external parties that do this as it is Libertarians (large L, in this case) that go to a lot of trouble to give that impression.  Anyone watching the Libertarian Party convention would *naturally* get the impression that many or even most libertarians were a bunch of extremist lunatics, that's not something that people are using in an \"attempt\" to do anything, dismissive or not.   To a certain degree this is verging into a No True Scotsman fallacy. We libertarians have to address the issue that there are extremist members of our ideology, just like proponents of *any* ideology, especially ones that are based on principles rather than platforms.   The NAP that *most* libertarians agree with is the same NAP that anarcho-capitalists follow in their extreme interpretation.   Much like the Quran... Or for that matter the Old Testament.   An actual *argument* about why an extremist interpretation of our principles is not justified is actually *our* responsibility to provide, not the general public's job to \"give the benefit of the doubt\" to.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2563.0,"score_ratio":6.3636363636}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6v8elm","c_root_id_B":"d6v3nn3","created_at_utc_A":1472074601,"created_at_utc_B":1472068746,"score_A":70,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The Non-aggression Principle (NAP) that libertarians espouse leads *directly* to anarcho-capitalism when consistently applied. Libertarian philosophy is deontological: No Stealing, Period. And taxes are theft. Therefore taxation is never justified. Therefore all government, which must rely on taxation, is by definition illegitimate. QED.   Even if government were somehow voluntarily funded, government is a monopoly on the use of force. It must necessarily initiate force against any competitors who try to take the government's place. Therefore the government necessarily violates the NAP, and is illegitimate. QED.   Any \"minarchist\" libertarian is always vulnerable to attack from anarcho-capitalists (ancaps), who can argue that they are applying libertarian principles inconsistently. And the ancaps are right. If taxation (theft) is ever justified from a consequentialist point of view (as opposed to the deontological argument against it), i.e. if we can tax \"for the greater good,\" then that opens the door to liberalism\/progressivism\/socialism. It is pretty much an indisputable fact that a dollar in the pocket of a rich man produces less happiness for him than the same dollar in a homeless person's pocket. Why not redistribute, at least a little bit? The minarchist is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and will have to double down on libertarian principles in order to defend against progressive views of government. That means they will be driven in into the ancap camp.   So in conclusion, people are right to ascribe anarcho-capitalism to more mainstream libertarians because it is the logical consequence of their beliefs.   I will concede however that it is logically possible for a purely utilitarian\/consequentialist libertarian to exist, who argues for deregulation and free markets based purely on their supposed benefits to the greater good, and not on any inherent value of liberty (as defined by the NAP). However, I don't think that any such libertarians exist, or at least I've never come across one (if you know any please point them out). The NAP is central to their belief system, kind of like how belief that Christ is the Lord and Savior is central to the Christian belief system. The utilitarian arguments for the free market are secondary, and the libertarian can always retreat to the NAP if they are challenged. Similarly, a Christian may deploy Pascal's Wager as an argument for believing in God, but that's not the real reason they believe and if challenged, they can retreat to their core faith.   The core faith of libertarians is the NAP. And the NAP leads to anarcho-capitalism. If anarcho-capitalism is crazy, then mainstream\/unprincipled libertarianism is also crazy. QED.   Note: I have some familiarity with libertarians since I used to be one. And I was led to anarcho-capitalism based on my study of libertarian theorists such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Herman-Hoppe, and Walter Block. That was a long time ago and I am a progressive now, an anarcho-communist\/socialist. So I don't think anarchism is crazy, just specifically the anarcho-capitalist variety.   EDIT: soullessgingerfck changed my view here.","human_ref_B":"Interested what you guys think about left wing libertarians?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5855.0,"score_ratio":14.0}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6v8elm","c_root_id_B":"d6uza43","created_at_utc_A":1472074601,"created_at_utc_B":1472063455,"score_A":70,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The Non-aggression Principle (NAP) that libertarians espouse leads *directly* to anarcho-capitalism when consistently applied. Libertarian philosophy is deontological: No Stealing, Period. And taxes are theft. Therefore taxation is never justified. Therefore all government, which must rely on taxation, is by definition illegitimate. QED.   Even if government were somehow voluntarily funded, government is a monopoly on the use of force. It must necessarily initiate force against any competitors who try to take the government's place. Therefore the government necessarily violates the NAP, and is illegitimate. QED.   Any \"minarchist\" libertarian is always vulnerable to attack from anarcho-capitalists (ancaps), who can argue that they are applying libertarian principles inconsistently. And the ancaps are right. If taxation (theft) is ever justified from a consequentialist point of view (as opposed to the deontological argument against it), i.e. if we can tax \"for the greater good,\" then that opens the door to liberalism\/progressivism\/socialism. It is pretty much an indisputable fact that a dollar in the pocket of a rich man produces less happiness for him than the same dollar in a homeless person's pocket. Why not redistribute, at least a little bit? The minarchist is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and will have to double down on libertarian principles in order to defend against progressive views of government. That means they will be driven in into the ancap camp.   So in conclusion, people are right to ascribe anarcho-capitalism to more mainstream libertarians because it is the logical consequence of their beliefs.   I will concede however that it is logically possible for a purely utilitarian\/consequentialist libertarian to exist, who argues for deregulation and free markets based purely on their supposed benefits to the greater good, and not on any inherent value of liberty (as defined by the NAP). However, I don't think that any such libertarians exist, or at least I've never come across one (if you know any please point them out). The NAP is central to their belief system, kind of like how belief that Christ is the Lord and Savior is central to the Christian belief system. The utilitarian arguments for the free market are secondary, and the libertarian can always retreat to the NAP if they are challenged. Similarly, a Christian may deploy Pascal's Wager as an argument for believing in God, but that's not the real reason they believe and if challenged, they can retreat to their core faith.   The core faith of libertarians is the NAP. And the NAP leads to anarcho-capitalism. If anarcho-capitalism is crazy, then mainstream\/unprincipled libertarianism is also crazy. QED.   Note: I have some familiarity with libertarians since I used to be one. And I was led to anarcho-capitalism based on my study of libertarian theorists such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Herman-Hoppe, and Walter Block. That was a long time ago and I am a progressive now, an anarcho-communist\/socialist. So I don't think anarchism is crazy, just specifically the anarcho-capitalist variety.   EDIT: soullessgingerfck changed my view here.","human_ref_B":"> Never assume malice when ~~stupidity~~ ignorance will suffice.   I blame the media more for this than most individuals. Their reporting in the past on libertarians has mostly focused on the extreme end because that's usually the end that's more interesting to report on. I don't think they're doing it with the intention of discrediting libertarians, but just trying to sell to the widest audience possible.   Plus, most libertarians won't be as in your face at people as anarcho-capitalists. So when people think of them they'll think of the ones that are loudest about it first.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11146.0,"score_ratio":23.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6uza43","c_root_id_B":"d6v1vyy","created_at_utc_A":1472063455,"created_at_utc_B":1472066661,"score_A":3,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"> Never assume malice when ~~stupidity~~ ignorance will suffice.   I blame the media more for this than most individuals. Their reporting in the past on libertarians has mostly focused on the extreme end because that's usually the end that's more interesting to report on. I don't think they're doing it with the intention of discrediting libertarians, but just trying to sell to the widest audience possible.   Plus, most libertarians won't be as in your face at people as anarcho-capitalists. So when people think of them they'll think of the ones that are loudest about it first.","human_ref_B":"I only think you are half-right. I think Democrats do this based on the idea they are anarcho-capitalists, but Republicans do this based on they are corporate patron-less individuals who are soft on crime.   Unfortunately, the crux of Libertarian ideology is economic. It is a vehicle for economic conservatives who are supporters of sexual freedom, drug legalization, and a hands-off foreign policy to not be incorporated into the Democratic party.   While Hillary Clinton is hawkish, hard on crime, and a bit baby-boomer in her late-blooming support of LGBT rights, the party platform is very liberal and incorporates everything in the Libertarian platform besides the economic conservatism.   Liberals tend to think much of the US' current problems stemmed from economic deregulation in industries with inelastic demand and\/or high access to cash flow. There is evidence for this: the 2009 financial crisis was a result of easy access to home loans, lenient rules upon risky assets, and the fact commercial banking and investment banking were using the same cash pool. There is also evidence that economic inequality is exacerbated by our lenient tax structure towards capital gains and the removal of the middleman, a side effect of the internet and globalization. There is also evidence that we are losing the fight against global warming because we were not strict ENOUGH with environmental regulation in the seventies when we had the chance and liberal enough with clean energy investment when the head start would be paying dividends now.  Libertarians have failed to define themselves: they have often based their platform upon the force of personality of their candidate. Is it really Democrats' fault that they define Libertarians by the people who Libertarians put up as their intellectual standard-bearers: Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek? I think it is defensible to think that the rhetorical breadth of the Libertarian party is temporary: that it is a result of Gary Johnson being a protest candidate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3206.0,"score_ratio":7.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6v3nn3","c_root_id_B":"d6v5oh2","created_at_utc_A":1472068746,"created_at_utc_B":1472071214,"score_A":5,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Interested what you guys think about left wing libertarians?","human_ref_B":">But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians. I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Let's suppose an individual's first introduction to the Libertarian party was the Libertarian Debate in Orlando earlier this year. Let's say they were watching at this point. Here's a summary of the next few minutes:  Q: Would you make certain drugs illegal for children (even though they support legalization in general)?  Answers:   * Enthusiastic no. People simply wouldn't give drugs to children.   * Says drugs will not realistically be legalized for children. Sidesteps question.   * Yes, we have obligation to protect children. (Mix of boos and cheers from crowd)   * Long answer that boils down to \"no\". (Generally positive response from crowd)   * No, problem is not with seller of drug, but with parents. (Positive response again)  Q: Would you sign the Civil Rights Act of '64, which ended discrimination in the public and private sectors?  Answers:   * Yes (Mostly boos)   * Only prohibit government discrimination (Cheers)   * Prohibit gov't discrimination. Private discrimination is tough decision.   * It didn't completely end discrimination (non-answer)   * Repeal forced discrimination only. No prohibitions (Cheers)  Q: Should driver's licenses be required?  Answers:   * Hell no! (Cheers)   * No (Cheers)   * No (Cheers)   * No! What's next? Toast licenses?!?! (Cheers)   * Yes. (Boos)  Could you really fault somebody who walked away thinking that those positions were fairly mainstream libertarian? I don't think it's unreasonable for a spectator to assume that the majority of candidates and audience members at the convention were fairly representative of the party\/ideology as a whole - just as I wouldn't fault anybody who thought the positions endorsed at the Democratic or Republican debates\/conventions were mainstream for their respective party.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2468.0,"score_ratio":4.6}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6uza43","c_root_id_B":"d6v5oh2","created_at_utc_A":1472063455,"created_at_utc_B":1472071214,"score_A":3,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"> Never assume malice when ~~stupidity~~ ignorance will suffice.   I blame the media more for this than most individuals. Their reporting in the past on libertarians has mostly focused on the extreme end because that's usually the end that's more interesting to report on. I don't think they're doing it with the intention of discrediting libertarians, but just trying to sell to the widest audience possible.   Plus, most libertarians won't be as in your face at people as anarcho-capitalists. So when people think of them they'll think of the ones that are loudest about it first.","human_ref_B":">But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians. I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Let's suppose an individual's first introduction to the Libertarian party was the Libertarian Debate in Orlando earlier this year. Let's say they were watching at this point. Here's a summary of the next few minutes:  Q: Would you make certain drugs illegal for children (even though they support legalization in general)?  Answers:   * Enthusiastic no. People simply wouldn't give drugs to children.   * Says drugs will not realistically be legalized for children. Sidesteps question.   * Yes, we have obligation to protect children. (Mix of boos and cheers from crowd)   * Long answer that boils down to \"no\". (Generally positive response from crowd)   * No, problem is not with seller of drug, but with parents. (Positive response again)  Q: Would you sign the Civil Rights Act of '64, which ended discrimination in the public and private sectors?  Answers:   * Yes (Mostly boos)   * Only prohibit government discrimination (Cheers)   * Prohibit gov't discrimination. Private discrimination is tough decision.   * It didn't completely end discrimination (non-answer)   * Repeal forced discrimination only. No prohibitions (Cheers)  Q: Should driver's licenses be required?  Answers:   * Hell no! (Cheers)   * No (Cheers)   * No (Cheers)   * No! What's next? Toast licenses?!?! (Cheers)   * Yes. (Boos)  Could you really fault somebody who walked away thinking that those positions were fairly mainstream libertarian? I don't think it's unreasonable for a spectator to assume that the majority of candidates and audience members at the convention were fairly representative of the party\/ideology as a whole - just as I wouldn't fault anybody who thought the positions endorsed at the Democratic or Republican debates\/conventions were mainstream for their respective party.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7759.0,"score_ratio":7.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6v3nn3","c_root_id_B":"d6v6d6b","created_at_utc_A":1472068746,"created_at_utc_B":1472072038,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Interested what you guys think about left wing libertarians?","human_ref_B":"I think to a certain degree that it's not so much external parties that do this as it is Libertarians (large L, in this case) that go to a lot of trouble to give that impression.  Anyone watching the Libertarian Party convention would *naturally* get the impression that many or even most libertarians were a bunch of extremist lunatics, that's not something that people are using in an \"attempt\" to do anything, dismissive or not.   To a certain degree this is verging into a No True Scotsman fallacy. We libertarians have to address the issue that there are extremist members of our ideology, just like proponents of *any* ideology, especially ones that are based on principles rather than platforms.   The NAP that *most* libertarians agree with is the same NAP that anarcho-capitalists follow in their extreme interpretation.   Much like the Quran... Or for that matter the Old Testament.   An actual *argument* about why an extremist interpretation of our principles is not justified is actually *our* responsibility to provide, not the general public's job to \"give the benefit of the doubt\" to.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3292.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6v6d6b","c_root_id_B":"d6uza43","created_at_utc_A":1472072038,"created_at_utc_B":1472063455,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think to a certain degree that it's not so much external parties that do this as it is Libertarians (large L, in this case) that go to a lot of trouble to give that impression.  Anyone watching the Libertarian Party convention would *naturally* get the impression that many or even most libertarians were a bunch of extremist lunatics, that's not something that people are using in an \"attempt\" to do anything, dismissive or not.   To a certain degree this is verging into a No True Scotsman fallacy. We libertarians have to address the issue that there are extremist members of our ideology, just like proponents of *any* ideology, especially ones that are based on principles rather than platforms.   The NAP that *most* libertarians agree with is the same NAP that anarcho-capitalists follow in their extreme interpretation.   Much like the Quran... Or for that matter the Old Testament.   An actual *argument* about why an extremist interpretation of our principles is not justified is actually *our* responsibility to provide, not the general public's job to \"give the benefit of the doubt\" to.","human_ref_B":"> Never assume malice when ~~stupidity~~ ignorance will suffice.   I blame the media more for this than most individuals. Their reporting in the past on libertarians has mostly focused on the extreme end because that's usually the end that's more interesting to report on. I don't think they're doing it with the intention of discrediting libertarians, but just trying to sell to the widest audience possible.   Plus, most libertarians won't be as in your face at people as anarcho-capitalists. So when people think of them they'll think of the ones that are loudest about it first.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8583.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6uza43","c_root_id_B":"d6v3nn3","created_at_utc_A":1472063455,"created_at_utc_B":1472068746,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> Never assume malice when ~~stupidity~~ ignorance will suffice.   I blame the media more for this than most individuals. Their reporting in the past on libertarians has mostly focused on the extreme end because that's usually the end that's more interesting to report on. I don't think they're doing it with the intention of discrediting libertarians, but just trying to sell to the widest audience possible.   Plus, most libertarians won't be as in your face at people as anarcho-capitalists. So when people think of them they'll think of the ones that are loudest about it first.","human_ref_B":"Interested what you guys think about left wing libertarians?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5291.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6v9711","c_root_id_B":"d6vgt5h","created_at_utc_A":1472075618,"created_at_utc_B":1472086567,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Libertarians need more labels. Just like Christians need more labels.   I'd think a conservative libertarian would be more anarcho than a liberal one.   But people continue to use the one term libertarian.","human_ref_B":"I see your view has already been changed in one aspect. But the more simple version is this:  People ascribe the an-cap views to libertarians for the same reason people ascribe racism to the republicans or being anti-gun to democrats. It's not that they're trying to dismiss the thought, it's that they don't understand that for every political view, there's a spectrum.  People may hear about the NAP, or that \"taxation is theft\" or whatever other tropes libertarians use. The logical conclusion to these sorts of statements is definitely an an-cap society (affectionately called \"ancapistan\"). Many, if not most, libertarians will often stop short of that because they realize that ancapistan, like it's namesake in the middle east, would be a pretty gigantic train wreck politically.   What's that quote? Never attribute to malice that which can just as easily be explained by incompetence?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10949.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6vgt5h","c_root_id_B":"d6vafhe","created_at_utc_A":1472086567,"created_at_utc_B":1472077274,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I see your view has already been changed in one aspect. But the more simple version is this:  People ascribe the an-cap views to libertarians for the same reason people ascribe racism to the republicans or being anti-gun to democrats. It's not that they're trying to dismiss the thought, it's that they don't understand that for every political view, there's a spectrum.  People may hear about the NAP, or that \"taxation is theft\" or whatever other tropes libertarians use. The logical conclusion to these sorts of statements is definitely an an-cap society (affectionately called \"ancapistan\"). Many, if not most, libertarians will often stop short of that because they realize that ancapistan, like it's namesake in the middle east, would be a pretty gigantic train wreck politically.   What's that quote? Never attribute to malice that which can just as easily be explained by incompetence?","human_ref_B":"As with many situations, there's many answers here that I think are accurate and provide a piece of the picture. I'd like to offer another.  It's the most simplistic, that's why I think people do it. It's the easiest to argue against. It's easier to define, it's easier to understand. I don't know that much about the details of Libertarian philosophy, so I don't know how Libertarians may disagree with eachother and what points they might disagree or why, but those particulars are why it would be easier for me to articulate a position against anarcho-capitalism than libertarianism in general.   Anarcho-capitalism is simple, no government whatsoever. The line is not a shifting line based off who you are talking to or what views they hold. It's an extension of libertarian ideology, an extreme one as you acknowledged, and thus it gets ascribed as the primary libertarian ideology. Limited government isn't something I can address. Limited in what way? There's a billion ways you can limit government, and people are going to vary on what parts of the government are fit to be limited.   I've seen numerous self-described libertarians post on this site in various threads where they'd say they were libertarian but they can see one exception in the specific subject being mentioned where that subject warrants some government oversight, but they weren't all talking about the same subject. They each have a different idea of what aspects should be limited. Of course, that's completely fine that there is nuance, I'm not saying that all libertarians must agree, I'm simply saying that I think it's why it happens.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9293.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"4zdter","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Change my view thatWhen people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme belief system by just about any definition.  Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but not the majority.  Since anarcho-capitalist views are so extreme they are easily seen as crazy to most people: no government, no drivers license, no regulation whatsoever, live in the woods by yourself, etc.    Deregulation is much different from no regulation, and less government is much different from no government.  But widely across internet discussions, on the media, and in everyday in person conversation, people ascribe the more extreme views to all libertarians.  I believe they do this in order to dismiss all of libertarian thought, and the threat of the Libertarian Party to the Republican and Democratic parties politically.  Change my view. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6vf159","c_root_id_B":"d6vgt5h","created_at_utc_A":1472083859,"created_at_utc_B":1472086567,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'd be willing to take this one step further. It's disingenuous to portray any belief system as its most extreme form alone. Almost No One Believes that their system is correct 100% of the time. They just think that their system is the best in most situations. Starting from the assumption that they want to apply their beliefs whole cloth is fundamentally starting from an unfair position and is disruptive do any type of successful debate.","human_ref_B":"I see your view has already been changed in one aspect. But the more simple version is this:  People ascribe the an-cap views to libertarians for the same reason people ascribe racism to the republicans or being anti-gun to democrats. It's not that they're trying to dismiss the thought, it's that they don't understand that for every political view, there's a spectrum.  People may hear about the NAP, or that \"taxation is theft\" or whatever other tropes libertarians use. The logical conclusion to these sorts of statements is definitely an an-cap society (affectionately called \"ancapistan\"). Many, if not most, libertarians will often stop short of that because they realize that ancapistan, like it's namesake in the middle east, would be a pretty gigantic train wreck politically.   What's that quote? Never attribute to malice that which can just as easily be explained by incompetence?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2708.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"829eqd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: It is inconsistent to be in favour of banning Russian-sourced political messages from Reddit, and in favour of the principle net neutrality. The value of the principle of net neutrality is that it preserves the internet as a platform for unrestricted communication between people, via restricting what companies are permitted to do with their property.  The only reason to value the principle is if one holds the view that unrestricted communication between people is valuable and that private property rights should be infringed to maintain that value. (It is unnecessary to discuss the merits of censorship here, or whether unrestricted communication is *actually* good.)  I'd briefly like to distinguish between valuing net neutrality out of principle and valuing net neutrality out of pragmatism. If people support it merely because they perceive it as positively affecting information that they want to receive or impart, that is support out of pragmatism. If their primary objection is that they are not the people deciding what gets censored, they do not value net neutrality in principle.  Reddit is analogous to the internet as a whole, and has all the properties of the internet that make net neutrality worth imposing: Its founding purpose was to provide a medium for individuals to communicate on any topic. Setting up an alternative is onerous, due to difficulty of mustering public support. Private interests own the underlying infrastructure.  Russian-sourced political messaging is a form of communication. Under the principle of net neutrality, it would not be slowed, blocked or restricted by an ISP. Ergo, under the principle of net neutrality, it should not be slowed, blocked or restricted by the Reddit administration.  CMV.  For the purposes of giving some background so you can present arguments that align with my values: I personally value freedom of information and communication. I dislike systems that allow some people to communicate more than others. I believe that empathy and understanding will do more to quell disharmony than conflict. I have anti-establishment, democratic socialist leanings.","c_root_id_A":"dv8dllq","c_root_id_B":"dv8djvm","created_at_utc_A":1520284860,"created_at_utc_B":1520284816,"score_A":27,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">Reddit is analogous to the internet as a whole, and has all the properties of the internet that make net neutrality worth imposing: Its founding purpose was to provide a medium for individuals to communicate on any topic. Setting up an alternative is onerous, due to difficulty of mustering public support. Private interests own the underlying infrastructure.  Reddit does not exert absolute control over the internet, as ISPs do. The barrier to entry for starting a site like reddit is WAY lower than starting a new ISP. If the few telecom companies that control the industry want to start cracking down on (insert thing here), no one that wants internet access can really do much about it without net neutrality. If someone doesn't like what reddit is doing? There are approximately 1.2 billion other places you can go to talk, get advice about your car, get cat pictures, etc. Or you can make your own.","human_ref_B":"you are mixing 2 different issues.  net neutrality is about ISPs not picking and choosing what is on the internet, net neutrality is NOT about private business's websites having open spaces for everyone to have a voice.  This is similar to the first amendment. it protects citizens from the government restricting their speech not businesses. Businesses are allowed to pick and choose who they give a voice to.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":44.0,"score_ratio":2.4545454545}
+{"post_id":"829eqd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: It is inconsistent to be in favour of banning Russian-sourced political messages from Reddit, and in favour of the principle net neutrality. The value of the principle of net neutrality is that it preserves the internet as a platform for unrestricted communication between people, via restricting what companies are permitted to do with their property.  The only reason to value the principle is if one holds the view that unrestricted communication between people is valuable and that private property rights should be infringed to maintain that value. (It is unnecessary to discuss the merits of censorship here, or whether unrestricted communication is *actually* good.)  I'd briefly like to distinguish between valuing net neutrality out of principle and valuing net neutrality out of pragmatism. If people support it merely because they perceive it as positively affecting information that they want to receive or impart, that is support out of pragmatism. If their primary objection is that they are not the people deciding what gets censored, they do not value net neutrality in principle.  Reddit is analogous to the internet as a whole, and has all the properties of the internet that make net neutrality worth imposing: Its founding purpose was to provide a medium for individuals to communicate on any topic. Setting up an alternative is onerous, due to difficulty of mustering public support. Private interests own the underlying infrastructure.  Russian-sourced political messaging is a form of communication. Under the principle of net neutrality, it would not be slowed, blocked or restricted by an ISP. Ergo, under the principle of net neutrality, it should not be slowed, blocked or restricted by the Reddit administration.  CMV.  For the purposes of giving some background so you can present arguments that align with my values: I personally value freedom of information and communication. I dislike systems that allow some people to communicate more than others. I believe that empathy and understanding will do more to quell disharmony than conflict. I have anti-establishment, democratic socialist leanings.","c_root_id_A":"dv8d3zh","c_root_id_B":"dv8dllq","created_at_utc_A":1520284420,"created_at_utc_B":1520284860,"score_A":3,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards.  \"Double standards\" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant.  Please review our information about double standards in the wiki.  Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview.     *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":">Reddit is analogous to the internet as a whole, and has all the properties of the internet that make net neutrality worth imposing: Its founding purpose was to provide a medium for individuals to communicate on any topic. Setting up an alternative is onerous, due to difficulty of mustering public support. Private interests own the underlying infrastructure.  Reddit does not exert absolute control over the internet, as ISPs do. The barrier to entry for starting a site like reddit is WAY lower than starting a new ISP. If the few telecom companies that control the industry want to start cracking down on (insert thing here), no one that wants internet access can really do much about it without net neutrality. If someone doesn't like what reddit is doing? There are approximately 1.2 billion other places you can go to talk, get advice about your car, get cat pictures, etc. Or you can make your own.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":440.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"829eqd","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: It is inconsistent to be in favour of banning Russian-sourced political messages from Reddit, and in favour of the principle net neutrality. The value of the principle of net neutrality is that it preserves the internet as a platform for unrestricted communication between people, via restricting what companies are permitted to do with their property.  The only reason to value the principle is if one holds the view that unrestricted communication between people is valuable and that private property rights should be infringed to maintain that value. (It is unnecessary to discuss the merits of censorship here, or whether unrestricted communication is *actually* good.)  I'd briefly like to distinguish between valuing net neutrality out of principle and valuing net neutrality out of pragmatism. If people support it merely because they perceive it as positively affecting information that they want to receive or impart, that is support out of pragmatism. If their primary objection is that they are not the people deciding what gets censored, they do not value net neutrality in principle.  Reddit is analogous to the internet as a whole, and has all the properties of the internet that make net neutrality worth imposing: Its founding purpose was to provide a medium for individuals to communicate on any topic. Setting up an alternative is onerous, due to difficulty of mustering public support. Private interests own the underlying infrastructure.  Russian-sourced political messaging is a form of communication. Under the principle of net neutrality, it would not be slowed, blocked or restricted by an ISP. Ergo, under the principle of net neutrality, it should not be slowed, blocked or restricted by the Reddit administration.  CMV.  For the purposes of giving some background so you can present arguments that align with my values: I personally value freedom of information and communication. I dislike systems that allow some people to communicate more than others. I believe that empathy and understanding will do more to quell disharmony than conflict. I have anti-establishment, democratic socialist leanings.","c_root_id_A":"dv8d3zh","c_root_id_B":"dv8djvm","created_at_utc_A":1520284420,"created_at_utc_B":1520284816,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards.  \"Double standards\" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant.  Please review our information about double standards in the wiki.  Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview.     *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"you are mixing 2 different issues.  net neutrality is about ISPs not picking and choosing what is on the internet, net neutrality is NOT about private business's websites having open spaces for everyone to have a voice.  This is similar to the first amendment. it protects citizens from the government restricting their speech not businesses. Businesses are allowed to pick and choose who they give a voice to.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":396.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"qa9xlj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states There are some many things with this topic that I don\u2019t understand. For marijuana to be legal in SOME states but not ALL just doesn\u2019t make sense. States are entitled to have their own laws, but my question is why? Why legalize marijuana in only some states? What is the reason it\u2019s not legalized in all? The perception of marijuana to America is so backwards. This is a earth grown plant we are talking about. That has been proven to better the health of us in certain situations. Do I even have to bring up the fact that it\u2019s been scientifically proven that alcohol causes more negative side affects than marijuana, but yet we can drink alcohol with no question. I\u2019ve seen so many stories involving alcoholics, but yet we praise it with no question. Marijuana in my opinion should be legalized in all 50 states. I don\u2019t see a problem with it. Maybe it has to do with the fact that it can be sold? Either way it goes, I think it should be legalized.","c_root_id_A":"hh1noc1","c_root_id_B":"hh1knbm","created_at_utc_A":1634513326,"created_at_utc_B":1634511887,"score_A":49,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It isn\u2019t legal in some states because the people there haven\u2019t voted to make it so. Isn\u2019t that their prerogative? If they don\u2019t want it that way, it shouldn\u2019t have to be that way just because you want it to. Let communities decide for themselves what they want.","human_ref_B":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.  Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview.   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1439.0,"score_ratio":24.5}
+{"post_id":"qa9xlj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states There are some many things with this topic that I don\u2019t understand. For marijuana to be legal in SOME states but not ALL just doesn\u2019t make sense. States are entitled to have their own laws, but my question is why? Why legalize marijuana in only some states? What is the reason it\u2019s not legalized in all? The perception of marijuana to America is so backwards. This is a earth grown plant we are talking about. That has been proven to better the health of us in certain situations. Do I even have to bring up the fact that it\u2019s been scientifically proven that alcohol causes more negative side affects than marijuana, but yet we can drink alcohol with no question. I\u2019ve seen so many stories involving alcoholics, but yet we praise it with no question. Marijuana in my opinion should be legalized in all 50 states. I don\u2019t see a problem with it. Maybe it has to do with the fact that it can be sold? Either way it goes, I think it should be legalized.","c_root_id_A":"hh2jwc7","c_root_id_B":"hh26sr8","created_at_utc_A":1634529776,"created_at_utc_B":1634522822,"score_A":10,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you that alcohol has *at least* as many, if not more worse effects. And for that reason I personally think it should be legal.   To play devil's advocate though.. Marijuana is still an impairing drug. If it's widely available people  I don't think it's a stretch to assume there could easily be an increase in DUI arrests and accidents.   I don't know if you smoke yourself, or been around people who do, but I've definitely noticed a much more lenient swing with driving under the influence while high versus drunk. People I know who would never drive drunk are quite happy to drive high for many reasons, but the most common being something like \"I drive slowly when I'm high\", or \"I can drive high fine, I'm chilled out\". Obviously this is completely from my experience, I'd love to hear if others have observed the same.","human_ref_B":"I live in Wisconsin. As you know, all the surrounding states have legal Marijuana. People leave the state to go across state lines to get legal marijuana. Obviously there is cops around the state lines to catch people but it's almost so accessible but not. Wisconsin has this group of people called the Tavern League. They have a lot of push back to legal weed because it will hurt alcohol sales and that's what they are most worried about. Wisconsin has a lot of craft beer and other alcohol stuff that they don't want to lose sales from.  I don't know about other states but this is currently my states problem. Maybe other states have similar problems such as religious meaning or skepticism. Though every few months we get a vote for legal marijuana but it gets shut down because of the League. Im not here to change your mind but point out one example of why it doesn't work like that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6954.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"qa9xlj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states There are some many things with this topic that I don\u2019t understand. For marijuana to be legal in SOME states but not ALL just doesn\u2019t make sense. States are entitled to have their own laws, but my question is why? Why legalize marijuana in only some states? What is the reason it\u2019s not legalized in all? The perception of marijuana to America is so backwards. This is a earth grown plant we are talking about. That has been proven to better the health of us in certain situations. Do I even have to bring up the fact that it\u2019s been scientifically proven that alcohol causes more negative side affects than marijuana, but yet we can drink alcohol with no question. I\u2019ve seen so many stories involving alcoholics, but yet we praise it with no question. Marijuana in my opinion should be legalized in all 50 states. I don\u2019t see a problem with it. Maybe it has to do with the fact that it can be sold? Either way it goes, I think it should be legalized.","c_root_id_A":"hh26sr8","c_root_id_B":"hh1knbm","created_at_utc_A":1634522822,"created_at_utc_B":1634511887,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I live in Wisconsin. As you know, all the surrounding states have legal Marijuana. People leave the state to go across state lines to get legal marijuana. Obviously there is cops around the state lines to catch people but it's almost so accessible but not. Wisconsin has this group of people called the Tavern League. They have a lot of push back to legal weed because it will hurt alcohol sales and that's what they are most worried about. Wisconsin has a lot of craft beer and other alcohol stuff that they don't want to lose sales from.  I don't know about other states but this is currently my states problem. Maybe other states have similar problems such as religious meaning or skepticism. Though every few months we get a vote for legal marijuana but it gets shut down because of the League. Im not here to change your mind but point out one example of why it doesn't work like that.","human_ref_B":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.  Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview.   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10935.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"qa9xlj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states There are some many things with this topic that I don\u2019t understand. For marijuana to be legal in SOME states but not ALL just doesn\u2019t make sense. States are entitled to have their own laws, but my question is why? Why legalize marijuana in only some states? What is the reason it\u2019s not legalized in all? The perception of marijuana to America is so backwards. This is a earth grown plant we are talking about. That has been proven to better the health of us in certain situations. Do I even have to bring up the fact that it\u2019s been scientifically proven that alcohol causes more negative side affects than marijuana, but yet we can drink alcohol with no question. I\u2019ve seen so many stories involving alcoholics, but yet we praise it with no question. Marijuana in my opinion should be legalized in all 50 states. I don\u2019t see a problem with it. Maybe it has to do with the fact that it can be sold? Either way it goes, I think it should be legalized.","c_root_id_A":"hh1knbm","c_root_id_B":"hh2jwc7","created_at_utc_A":1634511887,"created_at_utc_B":1634529776,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.  Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview.   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"I agree with you that alcohol has *at least* as many, if not more worse effects. And for that reason I personally think it should be legal.   To play devil's advocate though.. Marijuana is still an impairing drug. If it's widely available people  I don't think it's a stretch to assume there could easily be an increase in DUI arrests and accidents.   I don't know if you smoke yourself, or been around people who do, but I've definitely noticed a much more lenient swing with driving under the influence while high versus drunk. People I know who would never drive drunk are quite happy to drive high for many reasons, but the most common being something like \"I drive slowly when I'm high\", or \"I can drive high fine, I'm chilled out\". Obviously this is completely from my experience, I'd love to hear if others have observed the same.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17889.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"qa9xlj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states There are some many things with this topic that I don\u2019t understand. For marijuana to be legal in SOME states but not ALL just doesn\u2019t make sense. States are entitled to have their own laws, but my question is why? Why legalize marijuana in only some states? What is the reason it\u2019s not legalized in all? The perception of marijuana to America is so backwards. This is a earth grown plant we are talking about. That has been proven to better the health of us in certain situations. Do I even have to bring up the fact that it\u2019s been scientifically proven that alcohol causes more negative side affects than marijuana, but yet we can drink alcohol with no question. I\u2019ve seen so many stories involving alcoholics, but yet we praise it with no question. Marijuana in my opinion should be legalized in all 50 states. I don\u2019t see a problem with it. Maybe it has to do with the fact that it can be sold? Either way it goes, I think it should be legalized.","c_root_id_A":"hh1knbm","c_root_id_B":"hh32q30","created_at_utc_A":1634511887,"created_at_utc_B":1634543879,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.  Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview.   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"I hear you. Although I lean on the side of full decriminilization of weed across the board...I'd prefer each state to vote whether or not to fully legalize it. That way we can research the pros and cons of legalization by comparing those who have legalized it to those who have not.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31992.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"qa9xlj","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states There are some many things with this topic that I don\u2019t understand. For marijuana to be legal in SOME states but not ALL just doesn\u2019t make sense. States are entitled to have their own laws, but my question is why? Why legalize marijuana in only some states? What is the reason it\u2019s not legalized in all? The perception of marijuana to America is so backwards. This is a earth grown plant we are talking about. That has been proven to better the health of us in certain situations. Do I even have to bring up the fact that it\u2019s been scientifically proven that alcohol causes more negative side affects than marijuana, but yet we can drink alcohol with no question. I\u2019ve seen so many stories involving alcoholics, but yet we praise it with no question. Marijuana in my opinion should be legalized in all 50 states. I don\u2019t see a problem with it. Maybe it has to do with the fact that it can be sold? Either way it goes, I think it should be legalized.","c_root_id_A":"hh3jek3","c_root_id_B":"hh1knbm","created_at_utc_A":1634557806,"created_at_utc_B":1634511887,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There are dry counties.  So why would those counties approve weed?","human_ref_B":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.  Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview.   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":45919.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"75slgt","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Psilocybin Mushrooms should be legal in the United States (over age 18) I have never done any recreational or illegal drugs before. Never smoked or drank alcohol. I've been ignorantly taught when growing up that all drugs are bad and will make you go insane and ruin your life.  And yet I do not understand why psilocybin mushrooms are illegal and why they are a Schedule 1 drug. I mean, seriously, what idiot thinks mushrooms are more dangerous than Heroin or Meth or Cocaine or whatever?  I do recognize that mushrooms can have negative effects if misused and need to be respected, but that is the same for alcohol, nicotine\/cigarettes, and weed.  So, why are mushrooms illegal and why should they continue to be?","c_root_id_A":"do8o97d","c_root_id_B":"do8t642","created_at_utc_A":1507763396,"created_at_utc_B":1507769285,"score_A":23,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"Mushrooms as you said is a schedule 1 drug. Once it became schedule 1 all research is cut and we no longer study the effects of it. First step would to do more research to find the full effects and better understand them. But the problem is they are seen as schedule 1 and once it is, it's very hard to take that title away and convince people there's a purpose to research it. And the only reason I see why we need to research it to make it legal is because people are raised ignorant to it and scared of it. people will need hard proof to reeducate them to allow it to be legal","human_ref_B":"I would only suggest that other mild to moderately harmful drugs like marijuana, LSD, and MDMA should also be legal. They are all less dangerous than alcohol according to this study.  http:\/\/farm1.static.flickr.com\/167\/432675368_9b1dd6e250_o.png","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5889.0,"score_ratio":1.8695652174}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2i26a","c_root_id_B":"iz2iidh","created_at_utc_A":1670284571,"created_at_utc_B":1670284775,"score_A":2,"score_B":553,"human_ref_A":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","human_ref_B":"Every time Spiderman is out of his element, it's reflected accordingly. But all Spiderman really needs for his mobility is tall stuff - that can be trees, or any city with tall buildings. Plenty of cities have tall buildings, even a wide span of dense tall buildings. Indeed, some cities are taller and larger!  I think Spiderman is so keyed to NYC because it's part of his character. But there are plenty of Spiderman stories where he's out of NYC (and indeed, being out of NYC is part of his reflection of the experience!). But a lot of characters are similarly keyed to cities - Daredevil to NYC (just a different neighborhood really!), Batman to Gotham, Superman to Metropolis. I grant that Superman can OPERATE anywhere, but part of who the character is, is keyed to being a mild mannered reporter in the City of Cities.  So I think it's kind of a flexible situation. In terms of execution of their powers though, think about how many supers have this issue - Flash for example operates in cities all the time, which seems like a terrible idea for someone who needs open straight aways. Same with any hero who has projectile related powers (Hawkeye for example).   Ultimately it's down to the writing. Some great writers wrote some great stuff about characters in spaces. Some didn't.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":204.0,"score_ratio":276.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2izm7","c_root_id_B":"iz2ipji","created_at_utc_A":1670284990,"created_at_utc_B":1670284863,"score_A":213,"score_B":67,"human_ref_A":"In the second MCU film he does just fine in the European city as Night Monkey. New York afords him the ability to do long swings, but I think that would also be true of any sky scrapered city. In a \"shorter\" city he'd have to rely on more sling shot type effects, but he'd be fine.   In the comics during the identity crisis run he took on 4 different identities with different locomotion styles. So even if SPIDERMAN doesn't necessarily work, Peter Parker could still be a hero.","human_ref_B":"I present to you \"Spiderman drift\" in Tokyo.  Spin offs including but not limited to.  Yokohama  Nagoya  Osaka  Hiroshima  Hong Kong (NYC+)  Those cities have so much more verticality and density then NYC.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":127.0,"score_ratio":3.1791044776}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2iju8","c_root_id_B":"iz2izm7","created_at_utc_A":1670284793,"created_at_utc_B":1670284990,"score_A":56,"score_B":213,"human_ref_A":"Chicago, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Shanghai all have very tall buildings in close proximity to each other, which seems to be your only criteria.","human_ref_B":"In the second MCU film he does just fine in the European city as Night Monkey. New York afords him the ability to do long swings, but I think that would also be true of any sky scrapered city. In a \"shorter\" city he'd have to rely on more sling shot type effects, but he'd be fine.   In the comics during the identity crisis run he took on 4 different identities with different locomotion styles. So even if SPIDERMAN doesn't necessarily work, Peter Parker could still be a hero.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":197.0,"score_ratio":3.8035714286}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2izm7","c_root_id_B":"iz2iq3h","created_at_utc_A":1670284990,"created_at_utc_B":1670284870,"score_A":213,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"In the second MCU film he does just fine in the European city as Night Monkey. New York afords him the ability to do long swings, but I think that would also be true of any sky scrapered city. In a \"shorter\" city he'd have to rely on more sling shot type effects, but he'd be fine.   In the comics during the identity crisis run he took on 4 different identities with different locomotion styles. So even if SPIDERMAN doesn't necessarily work, Peter Parker could still be a hero.","human_ref_B":"Wouldn't even work in most of NYC. Most streets there do not have continuous rows of skyscrapers on both sides.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":120.0,"score_ratio":10.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2izm7","c_root_id_B":"iz2ivmc","created_at_utc_A":1670284990,"created_at_utc_B":1670284940,"score_A":213,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"In the second MCU film he does just fine in the European city as Night Monkey. New York afords him the ability to do long swings, but I think that would also be true of any sky scrapered city. In a \"shorter\" city he'd have to rely on more sling shot type effects, but he'd be fine.   In the comics during the identity crisis run he took on 4 different identities with different locomotion styles. So even if SPIDERMAN doesn't necessarily work, Peter Parker could still be a hero.","human_ref_B":"This looks like a pretty good skyline to swing from. Plenty of tall buildings, huge, steep  hills, big bridges, etc. As an added bonus, not that far from the city there are huge redwood groves to swing around.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":50.0,"score_ratio":42.6}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2i26a","c_root_id_B":"iz2izm7","created_at_utc_A":1670284571,"created_at_utc_B":1670284990,"score_A":2,"score_B":213,"human_ref_A":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","human_ref_B":"In the second MCU film he does just fine in the European city as Night Monkey. New York afords him the ability to do long swings, but I think that would also be true of any sky scrapered city. In a \"shorter\" city he'd have to rely on more sling shot type effects, but he'd be fine.   In the comics during the identity crisis run he took on 4 different identities with different locomotion styles. So even if SPIDERMAN doesn't necessarily work, Peter Parker could still be a hero.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":419.0,"score_ratio":106.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2jnrh","c_root_id_B":"iz2ipji","created_at_utc_A":1670285288,"created_at_utc_B":1670284863,"score_A":122,"score_B":67,"human_ref_A":"Chicago is #11 for most skyscrapers in the world and looks like this. If your objection is just \"that's only the heart of the city\", well, may I present the part of NY that Peter Parker is canonically from: Queens  Queens has less than a third the number of skyscrapers as Chicago: 37 to 131 despite a very similar population (2.3 mil for queens, 2.7 for Chicago). Most of queens looks like this or this","human_ref_B":"I present to you \"Spiderman drift\" in Tokyo.  Spin offs including but not limited to.  Yokohama  Nagoya  Osaka  Hiroshima  Hong Kong (NYC+)  Those cities have so much more verticality and density then NYC.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":425.0,"score_ratio":1.8208955224}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2jnrh","c_root_id_B":"iz2iju8","created_at_utc_A":1670285288,"created_at_utc_B":1670284793,"score_A":122,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"Chicago is #11 for most skyscrapers in the world and looks like this. If your objection is just \"that's only the heart of the city\", well, may I present the part of NY that Peter Parker is canonically from: Queens  Queens has less than a third the number of skyscrapers as Chicago: 37 to 131 despite a very similar population (2.3 mil for queens, 2.7 for Chicago). Most of queens looks like this or this","human_ref_B":"Chicago, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Shanghai all have very tall buildings in close proximity to each other, which seems to be your only criteria.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":495.0,"score_ratio":2.1785714286}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2iq3h","c_root_id_B":"iz2jnrh","created_at_utc_A":1670284870,"created_at_utc_B":1670285288,"score_A":21,"score_B":122,"human_ref_A":"Wouldn't even work in most of NYC. Most streets there do not have continuous rows of skyscrapers on both sides.","human_ref_B":"Chicago is #11 for most skyscrapers in the world and looks like this. If your objection is just \"that's only the heart of the city\", well, may I present the part of NY that Peter Parker is canonically from: Queens  Queens has less than a third the number of skyscrapers as Chicago: 37 to 131 despite a very similar population (2.3 mil for queens, 2.7 for Chicago). Most of queens looks like this or this","labels":0,"seconds_difference":418.0,"score_ratio":5.8095238095}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2jnrh","c_root_id_B":"iz2j3ev","created_at_utc_A":1670285288,"created_at_utc_B":1670285037,"score_A":122,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Chicago is #11 for most skyscrapers in the world and looks like this. If your objection is just \"that's only the heart of the city\", well, may I present the part of NY that Peter Parker is canonically from: Queens  Queens has less than a third the number of skyscrapers as Chicago: 37 to 131 despite a very similar population (2.3 mil for queens, 2.7 for Chicago). Most of queens looks like this or this","human_ref_B":"Spider-Man can web-swing faster than he can run (his web-slinging speed is like 200+ mph), but he can still run pretty fast. His running speed is easily highway speed and he can also jump great distances. Without his webs or tall buildings, he'd easily be able to travel around a city at 60-70 mph (faster than cops and EMS to arrive at a scene).  With the webs, he can also swing\/slingshot himself pretty effectively on smaller buildings. We see in comics and movies over and over again that he often only needs less than a little more than a few stories to web swing on. If he changed his web slinging style to shorter distanced webs, he'd be slower but still really really fast.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":251.0,"score_ratio":8.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2jnrh","c_root_id_B":"iz2j7q5","created_at_utc_A":1670285288,"created_at_utc_B":1670285091,"score_A":122,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Chicago is #11 for most skyscrapers in the world and looks like this. If your objection is just \"that's only the heart of the city\", well, may I present the part of NY that Peter Parker is canonically from: Queens  Queens has less than a third the number of skyscrapers as Chicago: 37 to 131 despite a very similar population (2.3 mil for queens, 2.7 for Chicago). Most of queens looks like this or this","human_ref_B":"What do you mean by \"work\"? Spider-Man might not be able to have his primary mode of movement be web-swinging but I don't know that is really the core of the character. Could he still be a student struggling to balance his regular life with the demands of being a hero, using his spider powers for good? I don't see the problem.  In fact we have *seen* the Marvel version of Spider-Man operating in areas other than New York City. Venice, Italy for example, or London, England. In fact we also have had significant fight scenes in locations such as airport tarmacs and the fields blasted by Thanos which have a notable lack of skyscrapers. Also it isn't like New York City has a monopoly on skyscrapers; why not say, Dubai?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":197.0,"score_ratio":11.0909090909}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ivmc","c_root_id_B":"iz2jnrh","created_at_utc_A":1670284940,"created_at_utc_B":1670285288,"score_A":5,"score_B":122,"human_ref_A":"This looks like a pretty good skyline to swing from. Plenty of tall buildings, huge, steep  hills, big bridges, etc. As an added bonus, not that far from the city there are huge redwood groves to swing around.","human_ref_B":"Chicago is #11 for most skyscrapers in the world and looks like this. If your objection is just \"that's only the heart of the city\", well, may I present the part of NY that Peter Parker is canonically from: Queens  Queens has less than a third the number of skyscrapers as Chicago: 37 to 131 despite a very similar population (2.3 mil for queens, 2.7 for Chicago). Most of queens looks like this or this","labels":0,"seconds_difference":348.0,"score_ratio":24.4}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2i26a","c_root_id_B":"iz2jnrh","created_at_utc_A":1670284571,"created_at_utc_B":1670285288,"score_A":2,"score_B":122,"human_ref_A":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","human_ref_B":"Chicago is #11 for most skyscrapers in the world and looks like this. If your objection is just \"that's only the heart of the city\", well, may I present the part of NY that Peter Parker is canonically from: Queens  Queens has less than a third the number of skyscrapers as Chicago: 37 to 131 despite a very similar population (2.3 mil for queens, 2.7 for Chicago). Most of queens looks like this or this","labels":0,"seconds_difference":717.0,"score_ratio":61.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2j8ry","c_root_id_B":"iz2jnrh","created_at_utc_A":1670285104,"created_at_utc_B":1670285288,"score_A":2,"score_B":122,"human_ref_A":"What about Gotham City? (I'm thinking Tim Burton, not that Nolan crap)  Movie still  Another movie still","human_ref_B":"Chicago is #11 for most skyscrapers in the world and looks like this. If your objection is just \"that's only the heart of the city\", well, may I present the part of NY that Peter Parker is canonically from: Queens  Queens has less than a third the number of skyscrapers as Chicago: 37 to 131 despite a very similar population (2.3 mil for queens, 2.7 for Chicago). Most of queens looks like this or this","labels":0,"seconds_difference":184.0,"score_ratio":61.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ipji","c_root_id_B":"iz2iju8","created_at_utc_A":1670284863,"created_at_utc_B":1670284793,"score_A":67,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"I present to you \"Spiderman drift\" in Tokyo.  Spin offs including but not limited to.  Yokohama  Nagoya  Osaka  Hiroshima  Hong Kong (NYC+)  Those cities have so much more verticality and density then NYC.","human_ref_B":"Chicago, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Shanghai all have very tall buildings in close proximity to each other, which seems to be your only criteria.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":70.0,"score_ratio":1.1964285714}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ipji","c_root_id_B":"iz2i26a","created_at_utc_A":1670284863,"created_at_utc_B":1670284571,"score_A":67,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I present to you \"Spiderman drift\" in Tokyo.  Spin offs including but not limited to.  Yokohama  Nagoya  Osaka  Hiroshima  Hong Kong (NYC+)  Those cities have so much more verticality and density then NYC.","human_ref_B":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","labels":1,"seconds_difference":292.0,"score_ratio":33.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2i26a","c_root_id_B":"iz2iju8","created_at_utc_A":1670284571,"created_at_utc_B":1670284793,"score_A":2,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","human_ref_B":"Chicago, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Shanghai all have very tall buildings in close proximity to each other, which seems to be your only criteria.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":222.0,"score_ratio":28.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2iq3h","c_root_id_B":"iz2i26a","created_at_utc_A":1670284870,"created_at_utc_B":1670284571,"score_A":21,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Wouldn't even work in most of NYC. Most streets there do not have continuous rows of skyscrapers on both sides.","human_ref_B":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","labels":1,"seconds_difference":299.0,"score_ratio":10.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ivmc","c_root_id_B":"iz2j3ev","created_at_utc_A":1670284940,"created_at_utc_B":1670285037,"score_A":5,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"This looks like a pretty good skyline to swing from. Plenty of tall buildings, huge, steep  hills, big bridges, etc. As an added bonus, not that far from the city there are huge redwood groves to swing around.","human_ref_B":"Spider-Man can web-swing faster than he can run (his web-slinging speed is like 200+ mph), but he can still run pretty fast. His running speed is easily highway speed and he can also jump great distances. Without his webs or tall buildings, he'd easily be able to travel around a city at 60-70 mph (faster than cops and EMS to arrive at a scene).  With the webs, he can also swing\/slingshot himself pretty effectively on smaller buildings. We see in comics and movies over and over again that he often only needs less than a little more than a few stories to web swing on. If he changed his web slinging style to shorter distanced webs, he'd be slower but still really really fast.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":97.0,"score_ratio":2.8}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2j3ev","c_root_id_B":"iz2i26a","created_at_utc_A":1670285037,"created_at_utc_B":1670284571,"score_A":14,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Spider-Man can web-swing faster than he can run (his web-slinging speed is like 200+ mph), but he can still run pretty fast. His running speed is easily highway speed and he can also jump great distances. Without his webs or tall buildings, he'd easily be able to travel around a city at 60-70 mph (faster than cops and EMS to arrive at a scene).  With the webs, he can also swing\/slingshot himself pretty effectively on smaller buildings. We see in comics and movies over and over again that he often only needs less than a little more than a few stories to web swing on. If he changed his web slinging style to shorter distanced webs, he'd be slower but still really really fast.","human_ref_B":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","labels":1,"seconds_difference":466.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ody0","c_root_id_B":"iz2j7q5","created_at_utc_A":1670287416,"created_at_utc_B":1670285091,"score_A":13,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one)'  You know there are other cities in the world aside from NYC and the one in which you live right? Lots of cities around the world and in the US have lots of tall buildings, NYC isn't particularly impressive on the tall-buildings front imo. Hong Kong and Shanghai come to mind immediately for me.","human_ref_B":"What do you mean by \"work\"? Spider-Man might not be able to have his primary mode of movement be web-swinging but I don't know that is really the core of the character. Could he still be a student struggling to balance his regular life with the demands of being a hero, using his spider powers for good? I don't see the problem.  In fact we have *seen* the Marvel version of Spider-Man operating in areas other than New York City. Venice, Italy for example, or London, England. In fact we also have had significant fight scenes in locations such as airport tarmacs and the fields blasted by Thanos which have a notable lack of skyscrapers. Also it isn't like New York City has a monopoly on skyscrapers; why not say, Dubai?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2325.0,"score_ratio":1.1818181818}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ody0","c_root_id_B":"iz2ivmc","created_at_utc_A":1670287416,"created_at_utc_B":1670284940,"score_A":13,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one)'  You know there are other cities in the world aside from NYC and the one in which you live right? Lots of cities around the world and in the US have lots of tall buildings, NYC isn't particularly impressive on the tall-buildings front imo. Hong Kong and Shanghai come to mind immediately for me.","human_ref_B":"This looks like a pretty good skyline to swing from. Plenty of tall buildings, huge, steep  hills, big bridges, etc. As an added bonus, not that far from the city there are huge redwood groves to swing around.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2476.0,"score_ratio":2.6}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ln05","c_root_id_B":"iz2ody0","created_at_utc_A":1670286178,"created_at_utc_B":1670287416,"score_A":4,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Underground cities - albeit all old. Chokepoint after chokepoint after chokepoint makes webs extremely effective, and mobility is greatly affected by agility thanks to vents and communication holes.","human_ref_B":">Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one)'  You know there are other cities in the world aside from NYC and the one in which you live right? Lots of cities around the world and in the US have lots of tall buildings, NYC isn't particularly impressive on the tall-buildings front imo. Hong Kong and Shanghai come to mind immediately for me.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1238.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ody0","c_root_id_B":"iz2i26a","created_at_utc_A":1670287416,"created_at_utc_B":1670284571,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one)'  You know there are other cities in the world aside from NYC and the one in which you live right? Lots of cities around the world and in the US have lots of tall buildings, NYC isn't particularly impressive on the tall-buildings front imo. Hong Kong and Shanghai come to mind immediately for me.","human_ref_B":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2845.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ody0","c_root_id_B":"iz2j8ry","created_at_utc_A":1670287416,"created_at_utc_B":1670285104,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one)'  You know there are other cities in the world aside from NYC and the one in which you live right? Lots of cities around the world and in the US have lots of tall buildings, NYC isn't particularly impressive on the tall-buildings front imo. Hong Kong and Shanghai come to mind immediately for me.","human_ref_B":"What about Gotham City? (I'm thinking Tim Burton, not that Nolan crap)  Movie still  Another movie still","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2312.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ody0","c_root_id_B":"iz2ka8b","created_at_utc_A":1670287416,"created_at_utc_B":1670285567,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one)'  You know there are other cities in the world aside from NYC and the one in which you live right? Lots of cities around the world and in the US have lots of tall buildings, NYC isn't particularly impressive on the tall-buildings front imo. Hong Kong and Shanghai come to mind immediately for me.","human_ref_B":"I guess it depends on what you mean by \u201cwork\u201d. He has a less efficient mode of transportation in smaller cities with fewer buildings sure, but he still has some tall buildings\/structures and the number of buildings he\u2019d need to swing from would be relative to the population for whom he is fighting crime for. So less buildings = fewer people = less area to cover on a patrol = less need for transportation. Relative to the average person he still possesses superhuman speed, superhuman strength, superhuman endurance, superhuman invulnerability to injury, superhuman climbing ability, superhuman reflexes, and his own homemade web fluid that can easily trap anyone he chooses in a variety of ways. As a crime-fighter he\u2019d still be more effective than your local PD, and that leaves out his impact as a deterrent. I live in a town of about 15K people, and if one of those 15K is Spider-Man I can tell you I\u2019m definitely thinking twice about trying to pull any violent crime in a public area.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1849.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ivmc","c_root_id_B":"iz2j7q5","created_at_utc_A":1670284940,"created_at_utc_B":1670285091,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"This looks like a pretty good skyline to swing from. Plenty of tall buildings, huge, steep  hills, big bridges, etc. As an added bonus, not that far from the city there are huge redwood groves to swing around.","human_ref_B":"What do you mean by \"work\"? Spider-Man might not be able to have his primary mode of movement be web-swinging but I don't know that is really the core of the character. Could he still be a student struggling to balance his regular life with the demands of being a hero, using his spider powers for good? I don't see the problem.  In fact we have *seen* the Marvel version of Spider-Man operating in areas other than New York City. Venice, Italy for example, or London, England. In fact we also have had significant fight scenes in locations such as airport tarmacs and the fields blasted by Thanos which have a notable lack of skyscrapers. Also it isn't like New York City has a monopoly on skyscrapers; why not say, Dubai?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":151.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2j7q5","c_root_id_B":"iz2i26a","created_at_utc_A":1670285091,"created_at_utc_B":1670284571,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What do you mean by \"work\"? Spider-Man might not be able to have his primary mode of movement be web-swinging but I don't know that is really the core of the character. Could he still be a student struggling to balance his regular life with the demands of being a hero, using his spider powers for good? I don't see the problem.  In fact we have *seen* the Marvel version of Spider-Man operating in areas other than New York City. Venice, Italy for example, or London, England. In fact we also have had significant fight scenes in locations such as airport tarmacs and the fields blasted by Thanos which have a notable lack of skyscrapers. Also it isn't like New York City has a monopoly on skyscrapers; why not say, Dubai?","human_ref_B":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","labels":1,"seconds_difference":520.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ivmc","c_root_id_B":"iz2v1ig","created_at_utc_A":1670284940,"created_at_utc_B":1670290483,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"This looks like a pretty good skyline to swing from. Plenty of tall buildings, huge, steep  hills, big bridges, etc. As an added bonus, not that far from the city there are huge redwood groves to swing around.","human_ref_B":"Hong Kong has more skyscrapers than New York both in terms of those above 150m and those above 100m. It is rank one New York #3 plus Dubai #4  still have less than HK.   https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List\\_of\\_cities\\_with\\_the\\_most\\_skyscrapers","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5543.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2v1ig","c_root_id_B":"iz2ln05","created_at_utc_A":1670290483,"created_at_utc_B":1670286178,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Hong Kong has more skyscrapers than New York both in terms of those above 150m and those above 100m. It is rank one New York #3 plus Dubai #4  still have less than HK.   https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List\\_of\\_cities\\_with\\_the\\_most\\_skyscrapers","human_ref_B":"Underground cities - albeit all old. Chokepoint after chokepoint after chokepoint makes webs extremely effective, and mobility is greatly affected by agility thanks to vents and communication holes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4305.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2i26a","c_root_id_B":"iz2v1ig","created_at_utc_A":1670284571,"created_at_utc_B":1670290483,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","human_ref_B":"Hong Kong has more skyscrapers than New York both in terms of those above 150m and those above 100m. It is rank one New York #3 plus Dubai #4  still have less than HK.   https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List\\_of\\_cities\\_with\\_the\\_most\\_skyscrapers","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5912.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2j8ry","c_root_id_B":"iz2v1ig","created_at_utc_A":1670285104,"created_at_utc_B":1670290483,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"What about Gotham City? (I'm thinking Tim Burton, not that Nolan crap)  Movie still  Another movie still","human_ref_B":"Hong Kong has more skyscrapers than New York both in terms of those above 150m and those above 100m. It is rank one New York #3 plus Dubai #4  still have less than HK.   https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List\\_of\\_cities\\_with\\_the\\_most\\_skyscrapers","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5379.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2v1ig","c_root_id_B":"iz2ka8b","created_at_utc_A":1670290483,"created_at_utc_B":1670285567,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hong Kong has more skyscrapers than New York both in terms of those above 150m and those above 100m. It is rank one New York #3 plus Dubai #4  still have less than HK.   https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List\\_of\\_cities\\_with\\_the\\_most\\_skyscrapers","human_ref_B":"I guess it depends on what you mean by \u201cwork\u201d. He has a less efficient mode of transportation in smaller cities with fewer buildings sure, but he still has some tall buildings\/structures and the number of buildings he\u2019d need to swing from would be relative to the population for whom he is fighting crime for. So less buildings = fewer people = less area to cover on a patrol = less need for transportation. Relative to the average person he still possesses superhuman speed, superhuman strength, superhuman endurance, superhuman invulnerability to injury, superhuman climbing ability, superhuman reflexes, and his own homemade web fluid that can easily trap anyone he chooses in a variety of ways. As a crime-fighter he\u2019d still be more effective than your local PD, and that leaves out his impact as a deterrent. I live in a town of about 15K people, and if one of those 15K is Spider-Man I can tell you I\u2019m definitely thinking twice about trying to pull any violent crime in a public area.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4916.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2sngk","c_root_id_B":"iz2v1ig","created_at_utc_A":1670289375,"created_at_utc_B":1670290483,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Well seeing how we\u2019ve seen Spider-Man fight in places where there\u2019s essentially no tall buildings and be fine or outright spectacular I\u2019m not buying this. Also I\u2019d like to point out that for spider man to swing from building to building it realistically only need to be about 4 stories tall, once you get above 20 feet there\u2019s not going to be a lot of obstacles in your way.","human_ref_B":"Hong Kong has more skyscrapers than New York both in terms of those above 150m and those above 100m. It is rank one New York #3 plus Dubai #4  still have less than HK.   https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List\\_of\\_cities\\_with\\_the\\_most\\_skyscrapers","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1108.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2yaet","c_root_id_B":"iz36b8p","created_at_utc_A":1670291962,"created_at_utc_B":1670295652,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019ve never been to any major cities outside the US?","human_ref_B":"Singapore , Kuala Lumpur, vancouver , san fran , Chicago , Melbourne , Bangkok , Shanghai , Dubai, Mexico City   How would you go from \u201cit only works because of the tall buildings\u201d to \u201cit only works in New York?\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3690.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2yaet","c_root_id_B":"iz2ln05","created_at_utc_A":1670291962,"created_at_utc_B":1670286178,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019ve never been to any major cities outside the US?","human_ref_B":"Underground cities - albeit all old. Chokepoint after chokepoint after chokepoint makes webs extremely effective, and mobility is greatly affected by agility thanks to vents and communication holes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5784.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz35ii7","c_root_id_B":"iz2yaet","created_at_utc_A":1670295275,"created_at_utc_B":1670291962,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Rural spiderman could be more like a ground spider like a trap door spider which are amazingly cool. He could have lots of trap doors built and just drive between them in say a sensible midsize sedan, something with low miles as crime rates are pretty low out in the boondocks you need to make reasonable financial choices.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019ve never been to any major cities outside the US?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3313.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2yaet","c_root_id_B":"iz2i26a","created_at_utc_A":1670291962,"created_at_utc_B":1670284571,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019ve never been to any major cities outside the US?","human_ref_B":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7391.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2yaet","c_root_id_B":"iz2j8ry","created_at_utc_A":1670291962,"created_at_utc_B":1670285104,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019ve never been to any major cities outside the US?","human_ref_B":"What about Gotham City? (I'm thinking Tim Burton, not that Nolan crap)  Movie still  Another movie still","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6858.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ka8b","c_root_id_B":"iz2yaet","created_at_utc_A":1670285567,"created_at_utc_B":1670291962,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I guess it depends on what you mean by \u201cwork\u201d. He has a less efficient mode of transportation in smaller cities with fewer buildings sure, but he still has some tall buildings\/structures and the number of buildings he\u2019d need to swing from would be relative to the population for whom he is fighting crime for. So less buildings = fewer people = less area to cover on a patrol = less need for transportation. Relative to the average person he still possesses superhuman speed, superhuman strength, superhuman endurance, superhuman invulnerability to injury, superhuman climbing ability, superhuman reflexes, and his own homemade web fluid that can easily trap anyone he chooses in a variety of ways. As a crime-fighter he\u2019d still be more effective than your local PD, and that leaves out his impact as a deterrent. I live in a town of about 15K people, and if one of those 15K is Spider-Man I can tell you I\u2019m definitely thinking twice about trying to pull any violent crime in a public area.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019ve never been to any major cities outside the US?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6395.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2sngk","c_root_id_B":"iz2yaet","created_at_utc_A":1670289375,"created_at_utc_B":1670291962,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Well seeing how we\u2019ve seen Spider-Man fight in places where there\u2019s essentially no tall buildings and be fine or outright spectacular I\u2019m not buying this. Also I\u2019d like to point out that for spider man to swing from building to building it realistically only need to be about 4 stories tall, once you get above 20 feet there\u2019s not going to be a lot of obstacles in your way.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019ve never been to any major cities outside the US?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2587.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz36b8p","c_root_id_B":"iz2ivmc","created_at_utc_A":1670295652,"created_at_utc_B":1670284940,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Singapore , Kuala Lumpur, vancouver , san fran , Chicago , Melbourne , Bangkok , Shanghai , Dubai, Mexico City   How would you go from \u201cit only works because of the tall buildings\u201d to \u201cit only works in New York?\u201d","human_ref_B":"This looks like a pretty good skyline to swing from. Plenty of tall buildings, huge, steep  hills, big bridges, etc. As an added bonus, not that far from the city there are huge redwood groves to swing around.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10712.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz36b8p","c_root_id_B":"iz2ln05","created_at_utc_A":1670295652,"created_at_utc_B":1670286178,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Singapore , Kuala Lumpur, vancouver , san fran , Chicago , Melbourne , Bangkok , Shanghai , Dubai, Mexico City   How would you go from \u201cit only works because of the tall buildings\u201d to \u201cit only works in New York?\u201d","human_ref_B":"Underground cities - albeit all old. Chokepoint after chokepoint after chokepoint makes webs extremely effective, and mobility is greatly affected by agility thanks to vents and communication holes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9474.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz36b8p","c_root_id_B":"iz333i6","created_at_utc_A":1670295652,"created_at_utc_B":1670294138,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Singapore , Kuala Lumpur, vancouver , san fran , Chicago , Melbourne , Bangkok , Shanghai , Dubai, Mexico City   How would you go from \u201cit only works because of the tall buildings\u201d to \u201cit only works in New York?\u201d","human_ref_B":"There was an evil clone of Peter Parker named Kaine Parker who had a redemption arc and ended up as the protector of... Houston Texas.  I've never read these comics, but presumably he made it work somehow.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1514.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz36b8p","c_root_id_B":"iz2i26a","created_at_utc_A":1670295652,"created_at_utc_B":1670284571,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Singapore , Kuala Lumpur, vancouver , san fran , Chicago , Melbourne , Bangkok , Shanghai , Dubai, Mexico City   How would you go from \u201cit only works because of the tall buildings\u201d to \u201cit only works in New York?\u201d","human_ref_B":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11081.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2j8ry","c_root_id_B":"iz36b8p","created_at_utc_A":1670285104,"created_at_utc_B":1670295652,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"What about Gotham City? (I'm thinking Tim Burton, not that Nolan crap)  Movie still  Another movie still","human_ref_B":"Singapore , Kuala Lumpur, vancouver , san fran , Chicago , Melbourne , Bangkok , Shanghai , Dubai, Mexico City   How would you go from \u201cit only works because of the tall buildings\u201d to \u201cit only works in New York?\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10548.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ka8b","c_root_id_B":"iz36b8p","created_at_utc_A":1670285567,"created_at_utc_B":1670295652,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I guess it depends on what you mean by \u201cwork\u201d. He has a less efficient mode of transportation in smaller cities with fewer buildings sure, but he still has some tall buildings\/structures and the number of buildings he\u2019d need to swing from would be relative to the population for whom he is fighting crime for. So less buildings = fewer people = less area to cover on a patrol = less need for transportation. Relative to the average person he still possesses superhuman speed, superhuman strength, superhuman endurance, superhuman invulnerability to injury, superhuman climbing ability, superhuman reflexes, and his own homemade web fluid that can easily trap anyone he chooses in a variety of ways. As a crime-fighter he\u2019d still be more effective than your local PD, and that leaves out his impact as a deterrent. I live in a town of about 15K people, and if one of those 15K is Spider-Man I can tell you I\u2019m definitely thinking twice about trying to pull any violent crime in a public area.","human_ref_B":"Singapore , Kuala Lumpur, vancouver , san fran , Chicago , Melbourne , Bangkok , Shanghai , Dubai, Mexico City   How would you go from \u201cit only works because of the tall buildings\u201d to \u201cit only works in New York?\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10085.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2sngk","c_root_id_B":"iz36b8p","created_at_utc_A":1670289375,"created_at_utc_B":1670295652,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Well seeing how we\u2019ve seen Spider-Man fight in places where there\u2019s essentially no tall buildings and be fine or outright spectacular I\u2019m not buying this. Also I\u2019d like to point out that for spider man to swing from building to building it realistically only need to be about 4 stories tall, once you get above 20 feet there\u2019s not going to be a lot of obstacles in your way.","human_ref_B":"Singapore , Kuala Lumpur, vancouver , san fran , Chicago , Melbourne , Bangkok , Shanghai , Dubai, Mexico City   How would you go from \u201cit only works because of the tall buildings\u201d to \u201cit only works in New York?\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6277.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ivmc","c_root_id_B":"iz35ii7","created_at_utc_A":1670284940,"created_at_utc_B":1670295275,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"This looks like a pretty good skyline to swing from. Plenty of tall buildings, huge, steep  hills, big bridges, etc. As an added bonus, not that far from the city there are huge redwood groves to swing around.","human_ref_B":"Rural spiderman could be more like a ground spider like a trap door spider which are amazingly cool. He could have lots of trap doors built and just drive between them in say a sensible midsize sedan, something with low miles as crime rates are pretty low out in the boondocks you need to make reasonable financial choices.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10335.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ivmc","c_root_id_B":"iz2i26a","created_at_utc_A":1670284940,"created_at_utc_B":1670284571,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This looks like a pretty good skyline to swing from. Plenty of tall buildings, huge, steep  hills, big bridges, etc. As an added bonus, not that far from the city there are huge redwood groves to swing around.","human_ref_B":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","labels":1,"seconds_difference":369.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ln05","c_root_id_B":"iz35ii7","created_at_utc_A":1670286178,"created_at_utc_B":1670295275,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Underground cities - albeit all old. Chokepoint after chokepoint after chokepoint makes webs extremely effective, and mobility is greatly affected by agility thanks to vents and communication holes.","human_ref_B":"Rural spiderman could be more like a ground spider like a trap door spider which are amazingly cool. He could have lots of trap doors built and just drive between them in say a sensible midsize sedan, something with low miles as crime rates are pretty low out in the boondocks you need to make reasonable financial choices.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9097.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ln05","c_root_id_B":"iz2i26a","created_at_utc_A":1670286178,"created_at_utc_B":1670284571,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Underground cities - albeit all old. Chokepoint after chokepoint after chokepoint makes webs extremely effective, and mobility is greatly affected by agility thanks to vents and communication holes.","human_ref_B":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1607.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ln05","c_root_id_B":"iz2j8ry","created_at_utc_A":1670286178,"created_at_utc_B":1670285104,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Underground cities - albeit all old. Chokepoint after chokepoint after chokepoint makes webs extremely effective, and mobility is greatly affected by agility thanks to vents and communication holes.","human_ref_B":"What about Gotham City? (I'm thinking Tim Burton, not that Nolan crap)  Movie still  Another movie still","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1074.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ka8b","c_root_id_B":"iz2ln05","created_at_utc_A":1670285567,"created_at_utc_B":1670286178,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I guess it depends on what you mean by \u201cwork\u201d. He has a less efficient mode of transportation in smaller cities with fewer buildings sure, but he still has some tall buildings\/structures and the number of buildings he\u2019d need to swing from would be relative to the population for whom he is fighting crime for. So less buildings = fewer people = less area to cover on a patrol = less need for transportation. Relative to the average person he still possesses superhuman speed, superhuman strength, superhuman endurance, superhuman invulnerability to injury, superhuman climbing ability, superhuman reflexes, and his own homemade web fluid that can easily trap anyone he chooses in a variety of ways. As a crime-fighter he\u2019d still be more effective than your local PD, and that leaves out his impact as a deterrent. I live in a town of about 15K people, and if one of those 15K is Spider-Man I can tell you I\u2019m definitely thinking twice about trying to pull any violent crime in a public area.","human_ref_B":"Underground cities - albeit all old. Chokepoint after chokepoint after chokepoint makes webs extremely effective, and mobility is greatly affected by agility thanks to vents and communication holes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":611.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz333i6","c_root_id_B":"iz35ii7","created_at_utc_A":1670294138,"created_at_utc_B":1670295275,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There was an evil clone of Peter Parker named Kaine Parker who had a redemption arc and ended up as the protector of... Houston Texas.  I've never read these comics, but presumably he made it work somehow.","human_ref_B":"Rural spiderman could be more like a ground spider like a trap door spider which are amazingly cool. He could have lots of trap doors built and just drive between them in say a sensible midsize sedan, something with low miles as crime rates are pretty low out in the boondocks you need to make reasonable financial choices.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1137.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2i26a","c_root_id_B":"iz35ii7","created_at_utc_A":1670284571,"created_at_utc_B":1670295275,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","human_ref_B":"Rural spiderman could be more like a ground spider like a trap door spider which are amazingly cool. He could have lots of trap doors built and just drive between them in say a sensible midsize sedan, something with low miles as crime rates are pretty low out in the boondocks you need to make reasonable financial choices.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10704.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2j8ry","c_root_id_B":"iz35ii7","created_at_utc_A":1670285104,"created_at_utc_B":1670295275,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"What about Gotham City? (I'm thinking Tim Burton, not that Nolan crap)  Movie still  Another movie still","human_ref_B":"Rural spiderman could be more like a ground spider like a trap door spider which are amazingly cool. He could have lots of trap doors built and just drive between them in say a sensible midsize sedan, something with low miles as crime rates are pretty low out in the boondocks you need to make reasonable financial choices.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10171.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz35ii7","c_root_id_B":"iz2ka8b","created_at_utc_A":1670295275,"created_at_utc_B":1670285567,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Rural spiderman could be more like a ground spider like a trap door spider which are amazingly cool. He could have lots of trap doors built and just drive between them in say a sensible midsize sedan, something with low miles as crime rates are pretty low out in the boondocks you need to make reasonable financial choices.","human_ref_B":"I guess it depends on what you mean by \u201cwork\u201d. He has a less efficient mode of transportation in smaller cities with fewer buildings sure, but he still has some tall buildings\/structures and the number of buildings he\u2019d need to swing from would be relative to the population for whom he is fighting crime for. So less buildings = fewer people = less area to cover on a patrol = less need for transportation. Relative to the average person he still possesses superhuman speed, superhuman strength, superhuman endurance, superhuman invulnerability to injury, superhuman climbing ability, superhuman reflexes, and his own homemade web fluid that can easily trap anyone he chooses in a variety of ways. As a crime-fighter he\u2019d still be more effective than your local PD, and that leaves out his impact as a deterrent. I live in a town of about 15K people, and if one of those 15K is Spider-Man I can tell you I\u2019m definitely thinking twice about trying to pull any violent crime in a public area.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9708.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz35ii7","c_root_id_B":"iz2sngk","created_at_utc_A":1670295275,"created_at_utc_B":1670289375,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Rural spiderman could be more like a ground spider like a trap door spider which are amazingly cool. He could have lots of trap doors built and just drive between them in say a sensible midsize sedan, something with low miles as crime rates are pretty low out in the boondocks you need to make reasonable financial choices.","human_ref_B":"Well seeing how we\u2019ve seen Spider-Man fight in places where there\u2019s essentially no tall buildings and be fine or outright spectacular I\u2019m not buying this. Also I\u2019d like to point out that for spider man to swing from building to building it realistically only need to be about 4 stories tall, once you get above 20 feet there\u2019s not going to be a lot of obstacles in your way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5900.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz333i6","c_root_id_B":"iz2i26a","created_at_utc_A":1670294138,"created_at_utc_B":1670284571,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There was an evil clone of Peter Parker named Kaine Parker who had a redemption arc and ended up as the protector of... Houston Texas.  I've never read these comics, but presumably he made it work somehow.","human_ref_B":"Maybe if he was bit by a radioactive Huntsman or Wolf spider","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9567.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz333i6","c_root_id_B":"iz2j8ry","created_at_utc_A":1670294138,"created_at_utc_B":1670285104,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There was an evil clone of Peter Parker named Kaine Parker who had a redemption arc and ended up as the protector of... Houston Texas.  I've never read these comics, but presumably he made it work somehow.","human_ref_B":"What about Gotham City? (I'm thinking Tim Burton, not that Nolan crap)  Movie still  Another movie still","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9034.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2ka8b","c_root_id_B":"iz333i6","created_at_utc_A":1670285567,"created_at_utc_B":1670294138,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I guess it depends on what you mean by \u201cwork\u201d. He has a less efficient mode of transportation in smaller cities with fewer buildings sure, but he still has some tall buildings\/structures and the number of buildings he\u2019d need to swing from would be relative to the population for whom he is fighting crime for. So less buildings = fewer people = less area to cover on a patrol = less need for transportation. Relative to the average person he still possesses superhuman speed, superhuman strength, superhuman endurance, superhuman invulnerability to injury, superhuman climbing ability, superhuman reflexes, and his own homemade web fluid that can easily trap anyone he chooses in a variety of ways. As a crime-fighter he\u2019d still be more effective than your local PD, and that leaves out his impact as a deterrent. I live in a town of about 15K people, and if one of those 15K is Spider-Man I can tell you I\u2019m definitely thinking twice about trying to pull any violent crime in a public area.","human_ref_B":"There was an evil clone of Peter Parker named Kaine Parker who had a redemption arc and ended up as the protector of... Houston Texas.  I've never read these comics, but presumably he made it work somehow.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8571.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"zdokw5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Spiderman wouldn't work in any city but New York Now, I say this purely as someone who grew up watching the Sam Raimi films like it was a religious doctrine (I'm not joking I can recite these movies by heart I've seen them so many times)  Aside from the Sam Raimi trilogy, I've seen the Amazing Spiderman movies maybe 4 times each and the MCU Spiderman films once each (I don't like mcu Spiderman but that is not relevant to this cmv)  Because of the skyline in New York, Spiderman is able to swing from heights safely, but it's only because there's so many tall buildings in New York.   Spiderman wouldn't be able to work if he was say in my city (won't say where for privacy reasons but the tallest building in the city is I believe has 14 floors and because of a certain bylaw no building is allowed to be taller than this one) because the buildings simply are not tall enough to properly swing.  I'd love to have my view changed on this, considering in Amazing Spiderman Peter even considers going to London with Gwen. Would he even be able to operate in any city but New York?","c_root_id_A":"iz2sngk","c_root_id_B":"iz333i6","created_at_utc_A":1670289375,"created_at_utc_B":1670294138,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Well seeing how we\u2019ve seen Spider-Man fight in places where there\u2019s essentially no tall buildings and be fine or outright spectacular I\u2019m not buying this. Also I\u2019d like to point out that for spider man to swing from building to building it realistically only need to be about 4 stories tall, once you get above 20 feet there\u2019s not going to be a lot of obstacles in your way.","human_ref_B":"There was an evil clone of Peter Parker named Kaine Parker who had a redemption arc and ended up as the protector of... Houston Texas.  I've never read these comics, but presumably he made it work somehow.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4763.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"u808nh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Housing ownership affordability isn't going to be fixed with the simple understanding of 'supply and demand' (Canada) Maybe I'm wrong or everyone is wrong, but it's weird seeing how there is a lot of people with this 'supply and demand' mentality. I am in Canada, so I don't know if this would apply to other countries. Anyways, any time there is a talk of the housing prices a lot of people (who seemingly thinks they know economics, but don't) always say 'just build more houses, it's just economics 101'. And yes, I'll admit I don't know economics anymore than these people, but I feel it's juvenile. The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  We don't have a supply issue. I think when sellers have a monopoly, that's one of the issues. Lets say it takes me 2 million to make a 4 unit apartment (low balling so the numbers for the purpose of this CMV stays low) I sell each at 1 million so I make a profit of 2 million.  (Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not.)  Lets say I sold 3 units. No worries. I still own the other one since I could sell it. Again, no worries, I still made a profit. The other unit now has a tenant. I still am making a profit. Also, I'm over charging my tenants. The 'supply' (ie a place to live) is still there. However, the house isn't affordable, even if the supply is there. Anyways now that I made a profit, I make rent expensive. Eventually, this tenant can no longer afford to rent and becomes homeless. (No I'm not saying this happens to everyone) My point is, even if there is a supply, it CAN become unaffordable to people. We aren't going to make things affordable just by increasing more 'supply' The prices aren't gonna go down just by adding 'supply'  Landlords that rely on rent as a profit aren't gonna make it cheaper because, they already made a profit.  I hope I am making sense.  But yeah, the reason I want my CMV is I want to understand whether or not the 'supply and demand' will really fix it as people say. I would like to be informed and hope when the next election comes around that I understand which party's (in theory) platform and policies will work better for me.","c_root_id_A":"i5hzvr8","c_root_id_B":"i5hzjtw","created_at_utc_A":1650472295,"created_at_utc_B":1650472165,"score_A":18,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Housing is complicated because it's often tied to land, which behaves differently in an economic sense from other things you're more used to. But let's focus on the units on the land to start with.   The point here is that housing is rather expensive to own. It's a liability unless you're renting it out. So a landlord would rather rent out a place at a low price than have it sit vacant. If there's more housing and more landlords, they have to keep competing more. It's not enough to rent out places to just the wealthiest, you have to lower prices again and again until you can find someone to rent to. That's what people mean when they say competition will lower prices.   In your example, the renter wouldn't just become homeless when their rent got too high, they would move to a cheaper place. That's why it's important to have lots of cheap housing available, as well as luxury housing so rich people don't take up all the cheap housing.  A simple thought experiment for you: if a quarter of rental properties burned down tomorrow, would rents go up or down?","human_ref_B":">The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  Are there any vacancy numbers or studies  to back this up?   >Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not  Your post really doesnt come across this way.   In my small town, the supply of available units is absolutely the biggest issue with costs. My house has nearly tripled in value over 3 years because its in a desirable area and there is almost zero construction going on. There is a massive development proposal of 2200 units, that I can almost assure you help curb the rise in prices. But you already said those units would remain empty, so how does one change your mind here.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":130.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"u808nh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Housing ownership affordability isn't going to be fixed with the simple understanding of 'supply and demand' (Canada) Maybe I'm wrong or everyone is wrong, but it's weird seeing how there is a lot of people with this 'supply and demand' mentality. I am in Canada, so I don't know if this would apply to other countries. Anyways, any time there is a talk of the housing prices a lot of people (who seemingly thinks they know economics, but don't) always say 'just build more houses, it's just economics 101'. And yes, I'll admit I don't know economics anymore than these people, but I feel it's juvenile. The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  We don't have a supply issue. I think when sellers have a monopoly, that's one of the issues. Lets say it takes me 2 million to make a 4 unit apartment (low balling so the numbers for the purpose of this CMV stays low) I sell each at 1 million so I make a profit of 2 million.  (Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not.)  Lets say I sold 3 units. No worries. I still own the other one since I could sell it. Again, no worries, I still made a profit. The other unit now has a tenant. I still am making a profit. Also, I'm over charging my tenants. The 'supply' (ie a place to live) is still there. However, the house isn't affordable, even if the supply is there. Anyways now that I made a profit, I make rent expensive. Eventually, this tenant can no longer afford to rent and becomes homeless. (No I'm not saying this happens to everyone) My point is, even if there is a supply, it CAN become unaffordable to people. We aren't going to make things affordable just by increasing more 'supply' The prices aren't gonna go down just by adding 'supply'  Landlords that rely on rent as a profit aren't gonna make it cheaper because, they already made a profit.  I hope I am making sense.  But yeah, the reason I want my CMV is I want to understand whether or not the 'supply and demand' will really fix it as people say. I would like to be informed and hope when the next election comes around that I understand which party's (in theory) platform and policies will work better for me.","c_root_id_A":"i5hz9u9","c_root_id_B":"i5hzvr8","created_at_utc_A":1650472058,"created_at_utc_B":1650472295,"score_A":5,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I wonder how inelastic you think the market is. Do you believe that if the supply of housing at all price levels quintupled instantaneously overnight that the average price would still increase at the same rate?","human_ref_B":"Housing is complicated because it's often tied to land, which behaves differently in an economic sense from other things you're more used to. But let's focus on the units on the land to start with.   The point here is that housing is rather expensive to own. It's a liability unless you're renting it out. So a landlord would rather rent out a place at a low price than have it sit vacant. If there's more housing and more landlords, they have to keep competing more. It's not enough to rent out places to just the wealthiest, you have to lower prices again and again until you can find someone to rent to. That's what people mean when they say competition will lower prices.   In your example, the renter wouldn't just become homeless when their rent got too high, they would move to a cheaper place. That's why it's important to have lots of cheap housing available, as well as luxury housing so rich people don't take up all the cheap housing.  A simple thought experiment for you: if a quarter of rental properties burned down tomorrow, would rents go up or down?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":237.0,"score_ratio":3.6}
+{"post_id":"u808nh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Housing ownership affordability isn't going to be fixed with the simple understanding of 'supply and demand' (Canada) Maybe I'm wrong or everyone is wrong, but it's weird seeing how there is a lot of people with this 'supply and demand' mentality. I am in Canada, so I don't know if this would apply to other countries. Anyways, any time there is a talk of the housing prices a lot of people (who seemingly thinks they know economics, but don't) always say 'just build more houses, it's just economics 101'. And yes, I'll admit I don't know economics anymore than these people, but I feel it's juvenile. The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  We don't have a supply issue. I think when sellers have a monopoly, that's one of the issues. Lets say it takes me 2 million to make a 4 unit apartment (low balling so the numbers for the purpose of this CMV stays low) I sell each at 1 million so I make a profit of 2 million.  (Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not.)  Lets say I sold 3 units. No worries. I still own the other one since I could sell it. Again, no worries, I still made a profit. The other unit now has a tenant. I still am making a profit. Also, I'm over charging my tenants. The 'supply' (ie a place to live) is still there. However, the house isn't affordable, even if the supply is there. Anyways now that I made a profit, I make rent expensive. Eventually, this tenant can no longer afford to rent and becomes homeless. (No I'm not saying this happens to everyone) My point is, even if there is a supply, it CAN become unaffordable to people. We aren't going to make things affordable just by increasing more 'supply' The prices aren't gonna go down just by adding 'supply'  Landlords that rely on rent as a profit aren't gonna make it cheaper because, they already made a profit.  I hope I am making sense.  But yeah, the reason I want my CMV is I want to understand whether or not the 'supply and demand' will really fix it as people say. I would like to be informed and hope when the next election comes around that I understand which party's (in theory) platform and policies will work better for me.","c_root_id_A":"i5hzvr8","c_root_id_B":"i5hzcnh","created_at_utc_A":1650472295,"created_at_utc_B":1650472089,"score_A":18,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Housing is complicated because it's often tied to land, which behaves differently in an economic sense from other things you're more used to. But let's focus on the units on the land to start with.   The point here is that housing is rather expensive to own. It's a liability unless you're renting it out. So a landlord would rather rent out a place at a low price than have it sit vacant. If there's more housing and more landlords, they have to keep competing more. It's not enough to rent out places to just the wealthiest, you have to lower prices again and again until you can find someone to rent to. That's what people mean when they say competition will lower prices.   In your example, the renter wouldn't just become homeless when their rent got too high, they would move to a cheaper place. That's why it's important to have lots of cheap housing available, as well as luxury housing so rich people don't take up all the cheap housing.  A simple thought experiment for you: if a quarter of rental properties burned down tomorrow, would rents go up or down?","human_ref_B":"It *is* a supply is.  What gives something value is scarcity, and people competing for a finite amount of resources.  If there are only 100 units in a given area for sale, but 1000 people looking to buy, people are going to have to pay more and more in order to outbid the other potential buyers.  If there is 900 units for sale in that area, now there is a far greater supply, and each person looking to buy doesn\u2019t have to spend nearly as much, because there isn\u2019t as much competition.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":206.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"u808nh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Housing ownership affordability isn't going to be fixed with the simple understanding of 'supply and demand' (Canada) Maybe I'm wrong or everyone is wrong, but it's weird seeing how there is a lot of people with this 'supply and demand' mentality. I am in Canada, so I don't know if this would apply to other countries. Anyways, any time there is a talk of the housing prices a lot of people (who seemingly thinks they know economics, but don't) always say 'just build more houses, it's just economics 101'. And yes, I'll admit I don't know economics anymore than these people, but I feel it's juvenile. The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  We don't have a supply issue. I think when sellers have a monopoly, that's one of the issues. Lets say it takes me 2 million to make a 4 unit apartment (low balling so the numbers for the purpose of this CMV stays low) I sell each at 1 million so I make a profit of 2 million.  (Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not.)  Lets say I sold 3 units. No worries. I still own the other one since I could sell it. Again, no worries, I still made a profit. The other unit now has a tenant. I still am making a profit. Also, I'm over charging my tenants. The 'supply' (ie a place to live) is still there. However, the house isn't affordable, even if the supply is there. Anyways now that I made a profit, I make rent expensive. Eventually, this tenant can no longer afford to rent and becomes homeless. (No I'm not saying this happens to everyone) My point is, even if there is a supply, it CAN become unaffordable to people. We aren't going to make things affordable just by increasing more 'supply' The prices aren't gonna go down just by adding 'supply'  Landlords that rely on rent as a profit aren't gonna make it cheaper because, they already made a profit.  I hope I am making sense.  But yeah, the reason I want my CMV is I want to understand whether or not the 'supply and demand' will really fix it as people say. I would like to be informed and hope when the next election comes around that I understand which party's (in theory) platform and policies will work better for me.","c_root_id_A":"i5hz9u9","c_root_id_B":"i5hzjtw","created_at_utc_A":1650472058,"created_at_utc_B":1650472165,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I wonder how inelastic you think the market is. Do you believe that if the supply of housing at all price levels quintupled instantaneously overnight that the average price would still increase at the same rate?","human_ref_B":">The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  Are there any vacancy numbers or studies  to back this up?   >Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not  Your post really doesnt come across this way.   In my small town, the supply of available units is absolutely the biggest issue with costs. My house has nearly tripled in value over 3 years because its in a desirable area and there is almost zero construction going on. There is a massive development proposal of 2200 units, that I can almost assure you help curb the rise in prices. But you already said those units would remain empty, so how does one change your mind here.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":107.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"u808nh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Housing ownership affordability isn't going to be fixed with the simple understanding of 'supply and demand' (Canada) Maybe I'm wrong or everyone is wrong, but it's weird seeing how there is a lot of people with this 'supply and demand' mentality. I am in Canada, so I don't know if this would apply to other countries. Anyways, any time there is a talk of the housing prices a lot of people (who seemingly thinks they know economics, but don't) always say 'just build more houses, it's just economics 101'. And yes, I'll admit I don't know economics anymore than these people, but I feel it's juvenile. The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  We don't have a supply issue. I think when sellers have a monopoly, that's one of the issues. Lets say it takes me 2 million to make a 4 unit apartment (low balling so the numbers for the purpose of this CMV stays low) I sell each at 1 million so I make a profit of 2 million.  (Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not.)  Lets say I sold 3 units. No worries. I still own the other one since I could sell it. Again, no worries, I still made a profit. The other unit now has a tenant. I still am making a profit. Also, I'm over charging my tenants. The 'supply' (ie a place to live) is still there. However, the house isn't affordable, even if the supply is there. Anyways now that I made a profit, I make rent expensive. Eventually, this tenant can no longer afford to rent and becomes homeless. (No I'm not saying this happens to everyone) My point is, even if there is a supply, it CAN become unaffordable to people. We aren't going to make things affordable just by increasing more 'supply' The prices aren't gonna go down just by adding 'supply'  Landlords that rely on rent as a profit aren't gonna make it cheaper because, they already made a profit.  I hope I am making sense.  But yeah, the reason I want my CMV is I want to understand whether or not the 'supply and demand' will really fix it as people say. I would like to be informed and hope when the next election comes around that I understand which party's (in theory) platform and policies will work better for me.","c_root_id_A":"i5hzcnh","c_root_id_B":"i5hzjtw","created_at_utc_A":1650472089,"created_at_utc_B":1650472165,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"It *is* a supply is.  What gives something value is scarcity, and people competing for a finite amount of resources.  If there are only 100 units in a given area for sale, but 1000 people looking to buy, people are going to have to pay more and more in order to outbid the other potential buyers.  If there is 900 units for sale in that area, now there is a far greater supply, and each person looking to buy doesn\u2019t have to spend nearly as much, because there isn\u2019t as much competition.","human_ref_B":">The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  Are there any vacancy numbers or studies  to back this up?   >Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not  Your post really doesnt come across this way.   In my small town, the supply of available units is absolutely the biggest issue with costs. My house has nearly tripled in value over 3 years because its in a desirable area and there is almost zero construction going on. There is a massive development proposal of 2200 units, that I can almost assure you help curb the rise in prices. But you already said those units would remain empty, so how does one change your mind here.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":76.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u808nh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Housing ownership affordability isn't going to be fixed with the simple understanding of 'supply and demand' (Canada) Maybe I'm wrong or everyone is wrong, but it's weird seeing how there is a lot of people with this 'supply and demand' mentality. I am in Canada, so I don't know if this would apply to other countries. Anyways, any time there is a talk of the housing prices a lot of people (who seemingly thinks they know economics, but don't) always say 'just build more houses, it's just economics 101'. And yes, I'll admit I don't know economics anymore than these people, but I feel it's juvenile. The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  We don't have a supply issue. I think when sellers have a monopoly, that's one of the issues. Lets say it takes me 2 million to make a 4 unit apartment (low balling so the numbers for the purpose of this CMV stays low) I sell each at 1 million so I make a profit of 2 million.  (Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not.)  Lets say I sold 3 units. No worries. I still own the other one since I could sell it. Again, no worries, I still made a profit. The other unit now has a tenant. I still am making a profit. Also, I'm over charging my tenants. The 'supply' (ie a place to live) is still there. However, the house isn't affordable, even if the supply is there. Anyways now that I made a profit, I make rent expensive. Eventually, this tenant can no longer afford to rent and becomes homeless. (No I'm not saying this happens to everyone) My point is, even if there is a supply, it CAN become unaffordable to people. We aren't going to make things affordable just by increasing more 'supply' The prices aren't gonna go down just by adding 'supply'  Landlords that rely on rent as a profit aren't gonna make it cheaper because, they already made a profit.  I hope I am making sense.  But yeah, the reason I want my CMV is I want to understand whether or not the 'supply and demand' will really fix it as people say. I would like to be informed and hope when the next election comes around that I understand which party's (in theory) platform and policies will work better for me.","c_root_id_A":"i5hz9u9","c_root_id_B":"i5i1bva","created_at_utc_A":1650472058,"created_at_utc_B":1650472856,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I wonder how inelastic you think the market is. Do you believe that if the supply of housing at all price levels quintupled instantaneously overnight that the average price would still increase at the same rate?","human_ref_B":"People with supply keep it vacant because they believe that their wait is worth it because a buyer (or renter) will come along at the asking price. If the unit stays empty long enough the owner has an incentive to lower the price\/rent until they find a suitable sale\/tenant.   The fact that there are empty units does not (necessarily) mean there is enough supply (or too much of it).  It can mean lots of things.   The signal that there is too much supply is prices coming down. Short of that a good proxy is longer vacancy times.   Here is a thought experiment, an owner has a house and has it listed for $1million. A similar house across the street sold for $900,000 last year so he believes his property is priced right. He is probably willing to hold that property for 2 or 3 months rather than take an offer of $900,000, because that's like making $33,000 each month for 3 months.   Now you wave a magic wand and the total number of houses\/apartments doubles overnight.  Is that owner going to wait 3 months to get his $1million?  Sure some people will jump at this newly available housing stock immediately at the current prices, maybe even buying this guys house for $1million. But most of the buyers are going to say wow there are 250,000 new houses, let's start looking at them. A few days turns into a few weeks. Sellers fearing that the OTHER seller will drop their price and sell their property leaving them holding the bag, so they lower their price first.   Lowering prices means there is an over abundance of supply.  If prices keep going up then there is not enough supply to meet the demand in the market.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":798.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"u808nh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Housing ownership affordability isn't going to be fixed with the simple understanding of 'supply and demand' (Canada) Maybe I'm wrong or everyone is wrong, but it's weird seeing how there is a lot of people with this 'supply and demand' mentality. I am in Canada, so I don't know if this would apply to other countries. Anyways, any time there is a talk of the housing prices a lot of people (who seemingly thinks they know economics, but don't) always say 'just build more houses, it's just economics 101'. And yes, I'll admit I don't know economics anymore than these people, but I feel it's juvenile. The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  We don't have a supply issue. I think when sellers have a monopoly, that's one of the issues. Lets say it takes me 2 million to make a 4 unit apartment (low balling so the numbers for the purpose of this CMV stays low) I sell each at 1 million so I make a profit of 2 million.  (Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not.)  Lets say I sold 3 units. No worries. I still own the other one since I could sell it. Again, no worries, I still made a profit. The other unit now has a tenant. I still am making a profit. Also, I'm over charging my tenants. The 'supply' (ie a place to live) is still there. However, the house isn't affordable, even if the supply is there. Anyways now that I made a profit, I make rent expensive. Eventually, this tenant can no longer afford to rent and becomes homeless. (No I'm not saying this happens to everyone) My point is, even if there is a supply, it CAN become unaffordable to people. We aren't going to make things affordable just by increasing more 'supply' The prices aren't gonna go down just by adding 'supply'  Landlords that rely on rent as a profit aren't gonna make it cheaper because, they already made a profit.  I hope I am making sense.  But yeah, the reason I want my CMV is I want to understand whether or not the 'supply and demand' will really fix it as people say. I would like to be informed and hope when the next election comes around that I understand which party's (in theory) platform and policies will work better for me.","c_root_id_A":"i5hzcnh","c_root_id_B":"i5i1bva","created_at_utc_A":1650472089,"created_at_utc_B":1650472856,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"It *is* a supply is.  What gives something value is scarcity, and people competing for a finite amount of resources.  If there are only 100 units in a given area for sale, but 1000 people looking to buy, people are going to have to pay more and more in order to outbid the other potential buyers.  If there is 900 units for sale in that area, now there is a far greater supply, and each person looking to buy doesn\u2019t have to spend nearly as much, because there isn\u2019t as much competition.","human_ref_B":"People with supply keep it vacant because they believe that their wait is worth it because a buyer (or renter) will come along at the asking price. If the unit stays empty long enough the owner has an incentive to lower the price\/rent until they find a suitable sale\/tenant.   The fact that there are empty units does not (necessarily) mean there is enough supply (or too much of it).  It can mean lots of things.   The signal that there is too much supply is prices coming down. Short of that a good proxy is longer vacancy times.   Here is a thought experiment, an owner has a house and has it listed for $1million. A similar house across the street sold for $900,000 last year so he believes his property is priced right. He is probably willing to hold that property for 2 or 3 months rather than take an offer of $900,000, because that's like making $33,000 each month for 3 months.   Now you wave a magic wand and the total number of houses\/apartments doubles overnight.  Is that owner going to wait 3 months to get his $1million?  Sure some people will jump at this newly available housing stock immediately at the current prices, maybe even buying this guys house for $1million. But most of the buyers are going to say wow there are 250,000 new houses, let's start looking at them. A few days turns into a few weeks. Sellers fearing that the OTHER seller will drop their price and sell their property leaving them holding the bag, so they lower their price first.   Lowering prices means there is an over abundance of supply.  If prices keep going up then there is not enough supply to meet the demand in the market.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":767.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u808nh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Housing ownership affordability isn't going to be fixed with the simple understanding of 'supply and demand' (Canada) Maybe I'm wrong or everyone is wrong, but it's weird seeing how there is a lot of people with this 'supply and demand' mentality. I am in Canada, so I don't know if this would apply to other countries. Anyways, any time there is a talk of the housing prices a lot of people (who seemingly thinks they know economics, but don't) always say 'just build more houses, it's just economics 101'. And yes, I'll admit I don't know economics anymore than these people, but I feel it's juvenile. The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  We don't have a supply issue. I think when sellers have a monopoly, that's one of the issues. Lets say it takes me 2 million to make a 4 unit apartment (low balling so the numbers for the purpose of this CMV stays low) I sell each at 1 million so I make a profit of 2 million.  (Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not.)  Lets say I sold 3 units. No worries. I still own the other one since I could sell it. Again, no worries, I still made a profit. The other unit now has a tenant. I still am making a profit. Also, I'm over charging my tenants. The 'supply' (ie a place to live) is still there. However, the house isn't affordable, even if the supply is there. Anyways now that I made a profit, I make rent expensive. Eventually, this tenant can no longer afford to rent and becomes homeless. (No I'm not saying this happens to everyone) My point is, even if there is a supply, it CAN become unaffordable to people. We aren't going to make things affordable just by increasing more 'supply' The prices aren't gonna go down just by adding 'supply'  Landlords that rely on rent as a profit aren't gonna make it cheaper because, they already made a profit.  I hope I am making sense.  But yeah, the reason I want my CMV is I want to understand whether or not the 'supply and demand' will really fix it as people say. I would like to be informed and hope when the next election comes around that I understand which party's (in theory) platform and policies will work better for me.","c_root_id_A":"i5i1bva","c_root_id_B":"i5i13m7","created_at_utc_A":1650472856,"created_at_utc_B":1650472768,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"People with supply keep it vacant because they believe that their wait is worth it because a buyer (or renter) will come along at the asking price. If the unit stays empty long enough the owner has an incentive to lower the price\/rent until they find a suitable sale\/tenant.   The fact that there are empty units does not (necessarily) mean there is enough supply (or too much of it).  It can mean lots of things.   The signal that there is too much supply is prices coming down. Short of that a good proxy is longer vacancy times.   Here is a thought experiment, an owner has a house and has it listed for $1million. A similar house across the street sold for $900,000 last year so he believes his property is priced right. He is probably willing to hold that property for 2 or 3 months rather than take an offer of $900,000, because that's like making $33,000 each month for 3 months.   Now you wave a magic wand and the total number of houses\/apartments doubles overnight.  Is that owner going to wait 3 months to get his $1million?  Sure some people will jump at this newly available housing stock immediately at the current prices, maybe even buying this guys house for $1million. But most of the buyers are going to say wow there are 250,000 new houses, let's start looking at them. A few days turns into a few weeks. Sellers fearing that the OTHER seller will drop their price and sell their property leaving them holding the bag, so they lower their price first.   Lowering prices means there is an over abundance of supply.  If prices keep going up then there is not enough supply to meet the demand in the market.","human_ref_B":"> Eventually, this tenant can no longer afford to rent and becomes homeless.  Assuming you don't want your place to be empty for long periods of time, the price you charge is dictated by market forces.  If there is more supply than people, then landlords and sellers both end up cutting their prices just so they're not sitting on an empty lot wasting money on upkeep and taxes.  > Landlords that rely on rent as a profit aren't gonna make it cheaper because, they already made a profit.  They still make more money by having their tenancy full, so are incentivized to price their home competitively.  > I think when sellers have a monopoly  What monopoly? There are a thousands of unique sellers in any individual market.  This seems like one of the worst examples of a monopoly.  Any given home buyer will likely be considering at least a dozen different sellers.  When you have so many different sellers as options, where is the monopoly?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":88.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"u808nh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: Housing ownership affordability isn't going to be fixed with the simple understanding of 'supply and demand' (Canada) Maybe I'm wrong or everyone is wrong, but it's weird seeing how there is a lot of people with this 'supply and demand' mentality. I am in Canada, so I don't know if this would apply to other countries. Anyways, any time there is a talk of the housing prices a lot of people (who seemingly thinks they know economics, but don't) always say 'just build more houses, it's just economics 101'. And yes, I'll admit I don't know economics anymore than these people, but I feel it's juvenile. The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  We don't have a supply issue. I think when sellers have a monopoly, that's one of the issues. Lets say it takes me 2 million to make a 4 unit apartment (low balling so the numbers for the purpose of this CMV stays low) I sell each at 1 million so I make a profit of 2 million.  (Please keep in mind, regardless of how I feel, the CMV isn't about whether making a profit is moral or not.)  Lets say I sold 3 units. No worries. I still own the other one since I could sell it. Again, no worries, I still made a profit. The other unit now has a tenant. I still am making a profit. Also, I'm over charging my tenants. The 'supply' (ie a place to live) is still there. However, the house isn't affordable, even if the supply is there. Anyways now that I made a profit, I make rent expensive. Eventually, this tenant can no longer afford to rent and becomes homeless. (No I'm not saying this happens to everyone) My point is, even if there is a supply, it CAN become unaffordable to people. We aren't going to make things affordable just by increasing more 'supply' The prices aren't gonna go down just by adding 'supply'  Landlords that rely on rent as a profit aren't gonna make it cheaper because, they already made a profit.  I hope I am making sense.  But yeah, the reason I want my CMV is I want to understand whether or not the 'supply and demand' will really fix it as people say. I would like to be informed and hope when the next election comes around that I understand which party's (in theory) platform and policies will work better for me.","c_root_id_A":"i5imm1h","c_root_id_B":"i5igi2e","created_at_utc_A":1650481055,"created_at_utc_B":1650478668,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"1. While it SEEMS like we've been building a lot, because there's so much construction going on, the number of housing completions in Ontario was not sufficient to meet the population growth over the last 5-6 years. (Mike Moffatt writes well on this.) Either we need to build more or accept fewer immigrants (and I'd be hesitant about opting for the latter, given our aging population). 2. While we also have a lot of problems with money laundering in real estate and the financialization of housing, housing is seen as a good investment in Canada in part because it is so scarce relative to the demand. 3. If we wanted to, we could also add supply beyond \"give developers everything they want\" by building more social, rent-geared-to-income housing. Canada used to build a ton of social housing in the 70s and 80s (here's the article that accompanies this excellent chart) but that just fell off a cliff in the 90s. This would basically undercut landlords, as it would give people options that are much cheaper than market rentals.","human_ref_B":">The government did build a lot of 'supply' but they sit empty because they got bought by corporations that still over charge.  Do you have actual evidence of hot housing markets with high vacancy rates? Because I hear this talking point all the time without anything backing it up.  I know your post is talking about Canada, but here is some US data from the Census Bureau: https:\/\/www.census.gov\/housing\/hvs\/data\/q421ind.html  The Census Bureau calculates a national rental vacancy rate of 5.6% for Q4 of 2021 and a homeowner vacancy rate of 0.9% (yes, less than 1%).  Also, the Census Bureau found that the Northeast and West regions (home to most high-cost American cities) had lower vacancy rates than the Midwest and South (not as many expensive cities).  To me, this evidence supports the supply-crunch theory of high housing prices.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2387.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"cqv467","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: There should be an age cap that prevents politicians over 70 years old from holding public office. I\u2019m from Britain, but this applies to any country.   As the age of retirement in the UK is 60-65, I believe it is entirely reasonable to stop politicians from serving over the age of 70. In any industry, the retirement of the older generations makes room for others to progress into more experienced roles and new people to enter into the new vacancies. But in politics older politicians, who may have entered in their 50s but have stood for re-election over the next 30 years, continue to serve into their 80s. In the UK, there are multiple politicians who only enter politics because they have retired from their previous careers.  Though it is unquestionable that there have been great older politicians, it is well known that older people generally tend to hold on to values and beliefs from their younger years, and this means politicians in their 70s and 80s are holding on to values and beliefs from 30-60 years ago. Is it any surprise that younger politicians often support modern movements (climate emergency, LGBT+ rights, women\u2019s rights, etc.) more than the older generations?  Out of 650 members of Parliament currently serving in the UK, there are 81 MPs aged over 65, a total of 339 over the age of 50, and only 14 that are aged under 30 (all of whom are unknown because they are in the back benches). Parliament\u2019s role is to do what is right for the country, currently and in the future. With just 2% of MPs aged under 30, how can we justify politicians over the age of 70, who realistically have a limited future, shaping the country that the younger generations must live in?","c_root_id_A":"ewzt15p","c_root_id_B":"ewzrep1","created_at_utc_A":1565900351,"created_at_utc_B":1565899631,"score_A":12,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"First, there's a bit of an issue here in conflating \"entering politics\" with \"becoming an MP.\"  Becoming an MP is not something most entry level politicians do.  Typically you'd run for something like local council first.    This is similar to asking why so few FTSE 100 companies have young CEOs, or why there are so few young Army generals.    Second, and more fundamentally, there's a big problem of democracy in telling people they can't vote for who they want.  One of the core things which makes a democracy legitimate is the fact that the people can choose whomever they like as their representative.    Obviously politicians should not be able to hide their age, and things like date of birth are a pretty normal disclosure requirement as a part of the process of running for office.  But if people want to vote for Jeremy Corbyn despite him being 70, it is not democratically legitimate to deny them that choice.","human_ref_B":">But in politics older politicians, who may have entered in their 50s but have stood for re-election over the next 30 years, continue to serve into their 80s.  Most industries don't have people enter at age 50. If I enter an industry in my early to mid-twenties and retire at 65 that's 40 years of work. If I become a politician at 50 then by the same logic I should retire at 90.   >Though it is unquestionable that there have been great older politicians, it is well known that older people generally tend to hold on to values and beliefs from their younger years, and this means politicians in their 70s and 80s are holding on to values and beliefs from 30-60 years ago.  What exactly is a belief from 30-60 years ago. If someone believes something now how is it antiquated?   > With just 2% of MPs aged under 30, how can we justify politicians over the age of 70, who realistically have a limited future, shaping the country that the younger generations must live in?  Because Politicians are elected and if the people thought they were too old to govern they wouldn't be elected.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":720.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909}
+{"post_id":"cqv467","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: There should be an age cap that prevents politicians over 70 years old from holding public office. I\u2019m from Britain, but this applies to any country.   As the age of retirement in the UK is 60-65, I believe it is entirely reasonable to stop politicians from serving over the age of 70. In any industry, the retirement of the older generations makes room for others to progress into more experienced roles and new people to enter into the new vacancies. But in politics older politicians, who may have entered in their 50s but have stood for re-election over the next 30 years, continue to serve into their 80s. In the UK, there are multiple politicians who only enter politics because they have retired from their previous careers.  Though it is unquestionable that there have been great older politicians, it is well known that older people generally tend to hold on to values and beliefs from their younger years, and this means politicians in their 70s and 80s are holding on to values and beliefs from 30-60 years ago. Is it any surprise that younger politicians often support modern movements (climate emergency, LGBT+ rights, women\u2019s rights, etc.) more than the older generations?  Out of 650 members of Parliament currently serving in the UK, there are 81 MPs aged over 65, a total of 339 over the age of 50, and only 14 that are aged under 30 (all of whom are unknown because they are in the back benches). Parliament\u2019s role is to do what is right for the country, currently and in the future. With just 2% of MPs aged under 30, how can we justify politicians over the age of 70, who realistically have a limited future, shaping the country that the younger generations must live in?","c_root_id_A":"ewztta1","c_root_id_B":"ewzugtp","created_at_utc_A":1565900663,"created_at_utc_B":1565900915,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"There's nothing magic about retirement age. People work well into their 100s if they want to. The age of retirement in the USA, 65 (though I think it's up to 67 now) was determined by the age when you could collect Social Security benefits. It has nothing to do with being too old to work. And when that age was picked, life expectancy was only about 60-65. Today, life expectancy is nearly 80.  If there is a problem with their values being too old-fashioned, then don't vote for them, plain and simple.","human_ref_B":"I don't see how someone being over 70 means they can't represent their constituents.  Or are you saying people over 70 just *wont* represent their constituents?  If the people voting for their seat don't like them, they can vote for someone else, right?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":252.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"cqv467","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: There should be an age cap that prevents politicians over 70 years old from holding public office. I\u2019m from Britain, but this applies to any country.   As the age of retirement in the UK is 60-65, I believe it is entirely reasonable to stop politicians from serving over the age of 70. In any industry, the retirement of the older generations makes room for others to progress into more experienced roles and new people to enter into the new vacancies. But in politics older politicians, who may have entered in their 50s but have stood for re-election over the next 30 years, continue to serve into their 80s. In the UK, there are multiple politicians who only enter politics because they have retired from their previous careers.  Though it is unquestionable that there have been great older politicians, it is well known that older people generally tend to hold on to values and beliefs from their younger years, and this means politicians in their 70s and 80s are holding on to values and beliefs from 30-60 years ago. Is it any surprise that younger politicians often support modern movements (climate emergency, LGBT+ rights, women\u2019s rights, etc.) more than the older generations?  Out of 650 members of Parliament currently serving in the UK, there are 81 MPs aged over 65, a total of 339 over the age of 50, and only 14 that are aged under 30 (all of whom are unknown because they are in the back benches). Parliament\u2019s role is to do what is right for the country, currently and in the future. With just 2% of MPs aged under 30, how can we justify politicians over the age of 70, who realistically have a limited future, shaping the country that the younger generations must live in?","c_root_id_A":"ewzugtp","c_root_id_B":"ewzudm1","created_at_utc_A":1565900915,"created_at_utc_B":1565900880,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't see how someone being over 70 means they can't represent their constituents.  Or are you saying people over 70 just *wont* represent their constituents?  If the people voting for their seat don't like them, they can vote for someone else, right?","human_ref_B":"> In the UK, there are multiple politicians who only enter politics because they have retired from their previous careers.  Which is great because they can draw upon a wealth of experience, not to mention input from other fields too.  > Though it is unquestionable that there have been great older politicians, it is well known that older people generally tend to hold on to values and beliefs from their younger years, and this means politicians in their 70s and 80s are holding on to values and beliefs from 30-60 years ago.  Old people are an important demographic in our society too that deserve representation.  What's wrong with letting young people vote for young politicians (if they want) and old people vote for old politicians?  The fact that we keep electing older politicians means to some degree there is a level of consensus that they can do a better job.  And a fixed limit like 70 isn't very good anyway because we expect people to live longer and longer, so would have to continually be updated.  > With just 2% of MPs aged under 30, how can we justify politicians over the age of 70, who realistically have a limited future, shaping the country that the younger generations must live in?  We just generally don't put young people with very little experience in charge of very important things.  Why would we?  Even if you DO find a person under 30 that is capable of being a good politician, where is the track record that can be used to convince other people that is the case?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"cqv467","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: There should be an age cap that prevents politicians over 70 years old from holding public office. I\u2019m from Britain, but this applies to any country.   As the age of retirement in the UK is 60-65, I believe it is entirely reasonable to stop politicians from serving over the age of 70. In any industry, the retirement of the older generations makes room for others to progress into more experienced roles and new people to enter into the new vacancies. But in politics older politicians, who may have entered in their 50s but have stood for re-election over the next 30 years, continue to serve into their 80s. In the UK, there are multiple politicians who only enter politics because they have retired from their previous careers.  Though it is unquestionable that there have been great older politicians, it is well known that older people generally tend to hold on to values and beliefs from their younger years, and this means politicians in their 70s and 80s are holding on to values and beliefs from 30-60 years ago. Is it any surprise that younger politicians often support modern movements (climate emergency, LGBT+ rights, women\u2019s rights, etc.) more than the older generations?  Out of 650 members of Parliament currently serving in the UK, there are 81 MPs aged over 65, a total of 339 over the age of 50, and only 14 that are aged under 30 (all of whom are unknown because they are in the back benches). Parliament\u2019s role is to do what is right for the country, currently and in the future. With just 2% of MPs aged under 30, how can we justify politicians over the age of 70, who realistically have a limited future, shaping the country that the younger generations must live in?","c_root_id_A":"ex01fk8","c_root_id_B":"ewztta1","created_at_utc_A":1565903576,"created_at_utc_B":1565900663,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Poland actually had a law on the books that judges are forced to retire at age 70. In 2018, they passed a new law lowering the retirement age to 65. One report I read said that would force 40% of their current judges into retirement.  The EU determined that Poland's law breaches EU law.  I realize this may not change anyone's view on the issue, but there are laws out there already like what OP is proposing.","human_ref_B":"There's nothing magic about retirement age. People work well into their 100s if they want to. The age of retirement in the USA, 65 (though I think it's up to 67 now) was determined by the age when you could collect Social Security benefits. It has nothing to do with being too old to work. And when that age was picked, life expectancy was only about 60-65. Today, life expectancy is nearly 80.  If there is a problem with their values being too old-fashioned, then don't vote for them, plain and simple.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2913.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"cqv467","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: There should be an age cap that prevents politicians over 70 years old from holding public office. I\u2019m from Britain, but this applies to any country.   As the age of retirement in the UK is 60-65, I believe it is entirely reasonable to stop politicians from serving over the age of 70. In any industry, the retirement of the older generations makes room for others to progress into more experienced roles and new people to enter into the new vacancies. But in politics older politicians, who may have entered in their 50s but have stood for re-election over the next 30 years, continue to serve into their 80s. In the UK, there are multiple politicians who only enter politics because they have retired from their previous careers.  Though it is unquestionable that there have been great older politicians, it is well known that older people generally tend to hold on to values and beliefs from their younger years, and this means politicians in their 70s and 80s are holding on to values and beliefs from 30-60 years ago. Is it any surprise that younger politicians often support modern movements (climate emergency, LGBT+ rights, women\u2019s rights, etc.) more than the older generations?  Out of 650 members of Parliament currently serving in the UK, there are 81 MPs aged over 65, a total of 339 over the age of 50, and only 14 that are aged under 30 (all of whom are unknown because they are in the back benches). Parliament\u2019s role is to do what is right for the country, currently and in the future. With just 2% of MPs aged under 30, how can we justify politicians over the age of 70, who realistically have a limited future, shaping the country that the younger generations must live in?","c_root_id_A":"ex01fk8","c_root_id_B":"ewzudm1","created_at_utc_A":1565903576,"created_at_utc_B":1565900880,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Poland actually had a law on the books that judges are forced to retire at age 70. In 2018, they passed a new law lowering the retirement age to 65. One report I read said that would force 40% of their current judges into retirement.  The EU determined that Poland's law breaches EU law.  I realize this may not change anyone's view on the issue, but there are laws out there already like what OP is proposing.","human_ref_B":"> In the UK, there are multiple politicians who only enter politics because they have retired from their previous careers.  Which is great because they can draw upon a wealth of experience, not to mention input from other fields too.  > Though it is unquestionable that there have been great older politicians, it is well known that older people generally tend to hold on to values and beliefs from their younger years, and this means politicians in their 70s and 80s are holding on to values and beliefs from 30-60 years ago.  Old people are an important demographic in our society too that deserve representation.  What's wrong with letting young people vote for young politicians (if they want) and old people vote for old politicians?  The fact that we keep electing older politicians means to some degree there is a level of consensus that they can do a better job.  And a fixed limit like 70 isn't very good anyway because we expect people to live longer and longer, so would have to continually be updated.  > With just 2% of MPs aged under 30, how can we justify politicians over the age of 70, who realistically have a limited future, shaping the country that the younger generations must live in?  We just generally don't put young people with very little experience in charge of very important things.  Why would we?  Even if you DO find a person under 30 that is capable of being a good politician, where is the track record that can be used to convince other people that is the case?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2696.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"a0q6fp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Falsely accusing someone of rape should be against the law, with repercussions similar to that of people committing rape. Falsely accusing someone of rape is mentally debilitating, ruins social interactions from long friends or total strangers potentially forever, and in the worst case people go to jail for a long time for being falsely accused.  And in many cases people who are falsely accusing others of rape get off with a slap on the wrist and a \u201ctalking to\u201d with only a few very publicized cases actually leading to legal repercussion.  And how is someone supposed to react after being accused of rape? If they\u2019re defensive, people assume they\u2019re trying to bury what happened with lies. And if they do nothing, nobody ever knows what happened, and can potentially spread worse rumours, not to mention the fact that the person who falsely accused them gets to live on and possibly even forget they ever said that.   Whereas the person who was accused has to live where many people see them as an awful person, and refuse to interact with them, even going as far as to warn others not to.  People even develop the idea that maybe they did do something wrong and they didn\u2019t know, and that it might happen again, so they\u2019re very weary of any potentially romantic situations, ruining their self confidence and possibly sending them into a deep depression.","c_root_id_A":"eajlfpl","c_root_id_B":"eajm5m1","created_at_utc_A":1543284435,"created_at_utc_B":1543285075,"score_A":25,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"It already is against the law to falsely file a police report. And people who are raped are already scared to come forward, we shouldnt add to that fear that if people don't believe them they're going to prison aswell.  Why add something specifically for the crime of rape?","human_ref_B":"No, because this would discourage reporting rape, and would criminalize true victims who cannot prove their allegation. Rape is a very hard charge to prove, as most cases come down to \"he said, she said\". This is why externalities - such as dress, behavior, etc. - are used to help determine who is telling the truth. These have been attacked in recent years, because they inherently remove agency from a woman - as in, wearing tight clothing does not mean that the woman wants to have sex, and it especially does not mean that she doesn't have the right to change her mind about sex between when she puts it on and when the two individuals are alone.   Yes, false rape allegations happen. The rate at which they happen is rather disputed, because it is difficult to distinguish between a false charge and a true charge where we don't have sufficient evidence to convict. Remember, convictions require evidence \"beyond a reasonable doubt,\" and in many situations a jury can reasonably doubt that the sex was not consensual.   So knowing that, imagine that you are a woman who has been raped, perhaps by an acquaintance or a spouse, with no witnesses or evidence to show that it was not consensual. Do you make a report, in the hopes that he will confess or that evidence might exist to prove he committed the crime, or to try and establish a pattern of behavior so that he won't get away with it in the future (or even just for your own peace of mind)? Or do you refrain from making a report, because you'll probably be charged and\/or convicted under the law against false rape charges?  On the whole, the fear of prosecution would reduce the number of rape allegations, both real ones and fake ones. That's not what we want. If you think that's hyperbolic, look at the case of prostitutes. Violence against prostitutes and escorts is quite common, but those crimes are seldom reported, as the women are afraid of being prosecuted for their sex work instead of being taken seriously as a victim. Some efforts have been made to protect victims from being prosecuted in this manner, but it's not universal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":640.0,"score_ratio":1.64}
+{"post_id":"a0q6fp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Falsely accusing someone of rape should be against the law, with repercussions similar to that of people committing rape. Falsely accusing someone of rape is mentally debilitating, ruins social interactions from long friends or total strangers potentially forever, and in the worst case people go to jail for a long time for being falsely accused.  And in many cases people who are falsely accusing others of rape get off with a slap on the wrist and a \u201ctalking to\u201d with only a few very publicized cases actually leading to legal repercussion.  And how is someone supposed to react after being accused of rape? If they\u2019re defensive, people assume they\u2019re trying to bury what happened with lies. And if they do nothing, nobody ever knows what happened, and can potentially spread worse rumours, not to mention the fact that the person who falsely accused them gets to live on and possibly even forget they ever said that.   Whereas the person who was accused has to live where many people see them as an awful person, and refuse to interact with them, even going as far as to warn others not to.  People even develop the idea that maybe they did do something wrong and they didn\u2019t know, and that it might happen again, so they\u2019re very weary of any potentially romantic situations, ruining their self confidence and possibly sending them into a deep depression.","c_root_id_A":"eajm5m1","c_root_id_B":"eajlumb","created_at_utc_A":1543285075,"created_at_utc_B":1543284797,"score_A":41,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"No, because this would discourage reporting rape, and would criminalize true victims who cannot prove their allegation. Rape is a very hard charge to prove, as most cases come down to \"he said, she said\". This is why externalities - such as dress, behavior, etc. - are used to help determine who is telling the truth. These have been attacked in recent years, because they inherently remove agency from a woman - as in, wearing tight clothing does not mean that the woman wants to have sex, and it especially does not mean that she doesn't have the right to change her mind about sex between when she puts it on and when the two individuals are alone.   Yes, false rape allegations happen. The rate at which they happen is rather disputed, because it is difficult to distinguish between a false charge and a true charge where we don't have sufficient evidence to convict. Remember, convictions require evidence \"beyond a reasonable doubt,\" and in many situations a jury can reasonably doubt that the sex was not consensual.   So knowing that, imagine that you are a woman who has been raped, perhaps by an acquaintance or a spouse, with no witnesses or evidence to show that it was not consensual. Do you make a report, in the hopes that he will confess or that evidence might exist to prove he committed the crime, or to try and establish a pattern of behavior so that he won't get away with it in the future (or even just for your own peace of mind)? Or do you refrain from making a report, because you'll probably be charged and\/or convicted under the law against false rape charges?  On the whole, the fear of prosecution would reduce the number of rape allegations, both real ones and fake ones. That's not what we want. If you think that's hyperbolic, look at the case of prostitutes. Violence against prostitutes and escorts is quite common, but those crimes are seldom reported, as the women are afraid of being prosecuted for their sex work instead of being taken seriously as a victim. Some efforts have been made to protect victims from being prosecuted in this manner, but it's not universal.","human_ref_B":"Rape is a vile form of bodily assault.  A false accusation is slander\/libel.   If you believe that the punishment for these two things should be the same, then you don't agree with the \"punishment fitting the crime\" mentality.  There is where your view meets moral resistance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":278.0,"score_ratio":2.9285714286}
+{"post_id":"a0q6fp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Falsely accusing someone of rape should be against the law, with repercussions similar to that of people committing rape. Falsely accusing someone of rape is mentally debilitating, ruins social interactions from long friends or total strangers potentially forever, and in the worst case people go to jail for a long time for being falsely accused.  And in many cases people who are falsely accusing others of rape get off with a slap on the wrist and a \u201ctalking to\u201d with only a few very publicized cases actually leading to legal repercussion.  And how is someone supposed to react after being accused of rape? If they\u2019re defensive, people assume they\u2019re trying to bury what happened with lies. And if they do nothing, nobody ever knows what happened, and can potentially spread worse rumours, not to mention the fact that the person who falsely accused them gets to live on and possibly even forget they ever said that.   Whereas the person who was accused has to live where many people see them as an awful person, and refuse to interact with them, even going as far as to warn others not to.  People even develop the idea that maybe they did do something wrong and they didn\u2019t know, and that it might happen again, so they\u2019re very weary of any potentially romantic situations, ruining their self confidence and possibly sending them into a deep depression.","c_root_id_A":"eajlget","c_root_id_B":"eajm5m1","created_at_utc_A":1543284451,"created_at_utc_B":1543285075,"score_A":3,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"It seems very difficult to prove, absent a confession from the false accuser.","human_ref_B":"No, because this would discourage reporting rape, and would criminalize true victims who cannot prove their allegation. Rape is a very hard charge to prove, as most cases come down to \"he said, she said\". This is why externalities - such as dress, behavior, etc. - are used to help determine who is telling the truth. These have been attacked in recent years, because they inherently remove agency from a woman - as in, wearing tight clothing does not mean that the woman wants to have sex, and it especially does not mean that she doesn't have the right to change her mind about sex between when she puts it on and when the two individuals are alone.   Yes, false rape allegations happen. The rate at which they happen is rather disputed, because it is difficult to distinguish between a false charge and a true charge where we don't have sufficient evidence to convict. Remember, convictions require evidence \"beyond a reasonable doubt,\" and in many situations a jury can reasonably doubt that the sex was not consensual.   So knowing that, imagine that you are a woman who has been raped, perhaps by an acquaintance or a spouse, with no witnesses or evidence to show that it was not consensual. Do you make a report, in the hopes that he will confess or that evidence might exist to prove he committed the crime, or to try and establish a pattern of behavior so that he won't get away with it in the future (or even just for your own peace of mind)? Or do you refrain from making a report, because you'll probably be charged and\/or convicted under the law against false rape charges?  On the whole, the fear of prosecution would reduce the number of rape allegations, both real ones and fake ones. That's not what we want. If you think that's hyperbolic, look at the case of prostitutes. Violence against prostitutes and escorts is quite common, but those crimes are seldom reported, as the women are afraid of being prosecuted for their sex work instead of being taken seriously as a victim. Some efforts have been made to protect victims from being prosecuted in this manner, but it's not universal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":624.0,"score_ratio":13.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"a0q6fp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Falsely accusing someone of rape should be against the law, with repercussions similar to that of people committing rape. Falsely accusing someone of rape is mentally debilitating, ruins social interactions from long friends or total strangers potentially forever, and in the worst case people go to jail for a long time for being falsely accused.  And in many cases people who are falsely accusing others of rape get off with a slap on the wrist and a \u201ctalking to\u201d with only a few very publicized cases actually leading to legal repercussion.  And how is someone supposed to react after being accused of rape? If they\u2019re defensive, people assume they\u2019re trying to bury what happened with lies. And if they do nothing, nobody ever knows what happened, and can potentially spread worse rumours, not to mention the fact that the person who falsely accused them gets to live on and possibly even forget they ever said that.   Whereas the person who was accused has to live where many people see them as an awful person, and refuse to interact with them, even going as far as to warn others not to.  People even develop the idea that maybe they did do something wrong and they didn\u2019t know, and that it might happen again, so they\u2019re very weary of any potentially romantic situations, ruining their self confidence and possibly sending them into a deep depression.","c_root_id_A":"eajlumb","c_root_id_B":"eajlget","created_at_utc_A":1543284797,"created_at_utc_B":1543284451,"score_A":14,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Rape is a vile form of bodily assault.  A false accusation is slander\/libel.   If you believe that the punishment for these two things should be the same, then you don't agree with the \"punishment fitting the crime\" mentality.  There is where your view meets moral resistance.","human_ref_B":"It seems very difficult to prove, absent a confession from the false accuser.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":346.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"a0q6fp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Falsely accusing someone of rape should be against the law, with repercussions similar to that of people committing rape. Falsely accusing someone of rape is mentally debilitating, ruins social interactions from long friends or total strangers potentially forever, and in the worst case people go to jail for a long time for being falsely accused.  And in many cases people who are falsely accusing others of rape get off with a slap on the wrist and a \u201ctalking to\u201d with only a few very publicized cases actually leading to legal repercussion.  And how is someone supposed to react after being accused of rape? If they\u2019re defensive, people assume they\u2019re trying to bury what happened with lies. And if they do nothing, nobody ever knows what happened, and can potentially spread worse rumours, not to mention the fact that the person who falsely accused them gets to live on and possibly even forget they ever said that.   Whereas the person who was accused has to live where many people see them as an awful person, and refuse to interact with them, even going as far as to warn others not to.  People even develop the idea that maybe they did do something wrong and they didn\u2019t know, and that it might happen again, so they\u2019re very weary of any potentially romantic situations, ruining their self confidence and possibly sending them into a deep depression.","c_root_id_A":"eajmkl5","c_root_id_B":"eajlget","created_at_utc_A":1543285447,"created_at_utc_B":1543284451,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"While I agree in theory(in a perfect world this would be great). I disagree wholeheartedly in practice. It would be too easy for an actual rapist with money and a good lawyer to manage to get a not guilty verdict, and then go after the rape victim for a \"false accusation\" I think if this was even a vague possibility that the amount of unreported rapes would sky rocket.","human_ref_B":"It seems very difficult to prove, absent a confession from the false accuser.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":996.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"a0q6fp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Falsely accusing someone of rape should be against the law, with repercussions similar to that of people committing rape. Falsely accusing someone of rape is mentally debilitating, ruins social interactions from long friends or total strangers potentially forever, and in the worst case people go to jail for a long time for being falsely accused.  And in many cases people who are falsely accusing others of rape get off with a slap on the wrist and a \u201ctalking to\u201d with only a few very publicized cases actually leading to legal repercussion.  And how is someone supposed to react after being accused of rape? If they\u2019re defensive, people assume they\u2019re trying to bury what happened with lies. And if they do nothing, nobody ever knows what happened, and can potentially spread worse rumours, not to mention the fact that the person who falsely accused them gets to live on and possibly even forget they ever said that.   Whereas the person who was accused has to live where many people see them as an awful person, and refuse to interact with them, even going as far as to warn others not to.  People even develop the idea that maybe they did do something wrong and they didn\u2019t know, and that it might happen again, so they\u2019re very weary of any potentially romantic situations, ruining their self confidence and possibly sending them into a deep depression.","c_root_id_A":"eajlget","c_root_id_B":"eajmfkj","created_at_utc_A":1543284451,"created_at_utc_B":1543285322,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"It seems very difficult to prove, absent a confession from the false accuser.","human_ref_B":"Falsely accusing someone of rape is against the law. Depending on exactly what you are doing it can be multiple crimes.   1) It is first and foremost Libel, or Slander depending on how you make the claim.   2) It is illegal to file a false police report.   3) It is illegal to lie under oath if things get to trial.   And there are any number of other criminal violations that you can make in giving a false accusation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":871.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"a0q6fp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Falsely accusing someone of rape should be against the law, with repercussions similar to that of people committing rape. Falsely accusing someone of rape is mentally debilitating, ruins social interactions from long friends or total strangers potentially forever, and in the worst case people go to jail for a long time for being falsely accused.  And in many cases people who are falsely accusing others of rape get off with a slap on the wrist and a \u201ctalking to\u201d with only a few very publicized cases actually leading to legal repercussion.  And how is someone supposed to react after being accused of rape? If they\u2019re defensive, people assume they\u2019re trying to bury what happened with lies. And if they do nothing, nobody ever knows what happened, and can potentially spread worse rumours, not to mention the fact that the person who falsely accused them gets to live on and possibly even forget they ever said that.   Whereas the person who was accused has to live where many people see them as an awful person, and refuse to interact with them, even going as far as to warn others not to.  People even develop the idea that maybe they did do something wrong and they didn\u2019t know, and that it might happen again, so they\u2019re very weary of any potentially romantic situations, ruining their self confidence and possibly sending them into a deep depression.","c_root_id_A":"eajlget","c_root_id_B":"eajpy58","created_at_utc_A":1543284451,"created_at_utc_B":1543288439,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It seems very difficult to prove, absent a confession from the false accuser.","human_ref_B":"I think what it comes down to is rape is a VERY difficult thing to convict. There for it is very hard for someone to get jail time for a false accusations (difficult not impossible) most women who take their rape to trial get accused of  lying about it. Unfortunately I don't think there is a way to stop people from falsely accusing as there is no way to get people to stop raping","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3988.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"a0q6fp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Falsely accusing someone of rape should be against the law, with repercussions similar to that of people committing rape. Falsely accusing someone of rape is mentally debilitating, ruins social interactions from long friends or total strangers potentially forever, and in the worst case people go to jail for a long time for being falsely accused.  And in many cases people who are falsely accusing others of rape get off with a slap on the wrist and a \u201ctalking to\u201d with only a few very publicized cases actually leading to legal repercussion.  And how is someone supposed to react after being accused of rape? If they\u2019re defensive, people assume they\u2019re trying to bury what happened with lies. And if they do nothing, nobody ever knows what happened, and can potentially spread worse rumours, not to mention the fact that the person who falsely accused them gets to live on and possibly even forget they ever said that.   Whereas the person who was accused has to live where many people see them as an awful person, and refuse to interact with them, even going as far as to warn others not to.  People even develop the idea that maybe they did do something wrong and they didn\u2019t know, and that it might happen again, so they\u2019re very weary of any potentially romantic situations, ruining their self confidence and possibly sending them into a deep depression.","c_root_id_A":"eal24z8","c_root_id_B":"eajlget","created_at_utc_A":1543341642,"created_at_utc_B":1543284451,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What if you were raped but there was not enough evidence to prove that you were raped? Then someone who gets raped would be scared to report it AND could end up in jail, essentially, just for getting raped and not having enough evidence.","human_ref_B":"It seems very difficult to prove, absent a confession from the false accuser.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":57191.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"a0q6fp","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Falsely accusing someone of rape should be against the law, with repercussions similar to that of people committing rape. Falsely accusing someone of rape is mentally debilitating, ruins social interactions from long friends or total strangers potentially forever, and in the worst case people go to jail for a long time for being falsely accused.  And in many cases people who are falsely accusing others of rape get off with a slap on the wrist and a \u201ctalking to\u201d with only a few very publicized cases actually leading to legal repercussion.  And how is someone supposed to react after being accused of rape? If they\u2019re defensive, people assume they\u2019re trying to bury what happened with lies. And if they do nothing, nobody ever knows what happened, and can potentially spread worse rumours, not to mention the fact that the person who falsely accused them gets to live on and possibly even forget they ever said that.   Whereas the person who was accused has to live where many people see them as an awful person, and refuse to interact with them, even going as far as to warn others not to.  People even develop the idea that maybe they did do something wrong and they didn\u2019t know, and that it might happen again, so they\u2019re very weary of any potentially romantic situations, ruining their self confidence and possibly sending them into a deep depression.","c_root_id_A":"eaju7i7","c_root_id_B":"eal24z8","created_at_utc_A":1543292588,"created_at_utc_B":1543341642,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"As many other posters have pointed out, increasing the barrier for reporting is a bad idea all around. But I do agree with you that there should be some level of punishment for a false accuser beyond civil charges, or whatever the charge is for perjury or filing a false report.   I think you should change your argument to people need to be punished more equally if it's found that they *knowingly or maliciously* filed a false report of rape or sexual assault.   Going to court for libel or slander might empty their pocketbook, but what if they don't have anything to award you damages from?  Meanwhile, your reputation is still ruined.   A criminal charge of malicious accusation (just making that up) that carries jail time, but with a commensurately high burden of proof, would probably curb the people who are truly horrible, while still giving reassurance to victims that just because they can't get a conviction, doesn't mean they'll go to jail themselves.","human_ref_B":"What if you were raped but there was not enough evidence to prove that you were raped? Then someone who gets raped would be scared to report it AND could end up in jail, essentially, just for getting raped and not having enough evidence.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":49054.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"z32qlz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Telling random people to smile is rude and inconsiderate of their feelings My view is that when people tell others to smile it's often comes from a place of selfishness rather than wanting that person to express themselves how they see fit. People want to see others smile mainly for aesthetic purposes than anything else. When you see someone down the street you have absolutely no idea what trials & tribulations they've faced, their life story, what they are currently going through and so on. So I think it's extremely dismissive to tell someone to put on a mask which is a smile because it personally looks appealing to you rather than actually try to brighten that persons day in any other regards. Like imagine if something tragic just happened to you where you lost your job, a love one got into a car accident or something in which it negatively impacted you. How would you feel if someone randomly came up and told you \"smile!\". Me personally it would piss me off quite a bit.  And on top of that nobody owes anyone anything when it comes to facial expression. How one chooses to express their face has no impact on anyone else's well being. Peoples faces aren't here to make someone else feel better so I feel like telling someone how they should handle their facial expression isn't any different than telling them how they should dress, walk etc. in my opinion telling people to smile comes from a form a narcissism in a sense that you want others to express themselves just for your own personal benefit. Because you find someone smiling more aesthetically pleasing than someone who doesn't look happy. Well what do you guys think?","c_root_id_A":"ixkkcbw","c_root_id_B":"ixjqwmi","created_at_utc_A":1669260067,"created_at_utc_B":1669245820,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Man you must hate professional photographers","human_ref_B":"i wouldn\u2019t call it rude i would just say it\u2019s kind of uncomfortable. I\u2019ve been told by random men walking in public numerous times things like \u201csmile honey\u201d and stuff and it just made me uncomfortable\ud83d\udc80 however in their mind, assuming they\u2019re not trying to b creepy, they\u2019re probably thinking that they made someone who may have been having a bad day feel a little better","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14247.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"z32qlz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Telling random people to smile is rude and inconsiderate of their feelings My view is that when people tell others to smile it's often comes from a place of selfishness rather than wanting that person to express themselves how they see fit. People want to see others smile mainly for aesthetic purposes than anything else. When you see someone down the street you have absolutely no idea what trials & tribulations they've faced, their life story, what they are currently going through and so on. So I think it's extremely dismissive to tell someone to put on a mask which is a smile because it personally looks appealing to you rather than actually try to brighten that persons day in any other regards. Like imagine if something tragic just happened to you where you lost your job, a love one got into a car accident or something in which it negatively impacted you. How would you feel if someone randomly came up and told you \"smile!\". Me personally it would piss me off quite a bit.  And on top of that nobody owes anyone anything when it comes to facial expression. How one chooses to express their face has no impact on anyone else's well being. Peoples faces aren't here to make someone else feel better so I feel like telling someone how they should handle their facial expression isn't any different than telling them how they should dress, walk etc. in my opinion telling people to smile comes from a form a narcissism in a sense that you want others to express themselves just for your own personal benefit. Because you find someone smiling more aesthetically pleasing than someone who doesn't look happy. Well what do you guys think?","c_root_id_A":"ixjn6dx","c_root_id_B":"ixjqwmi","created_at_utc_A":1669244124,"created_at_utc_B":1669245820,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"There\u2019s this psychological trick that if you force yourself to smile for a while, you\u2019ll actually influence yourself to be happy.  Try it. Smile. Just try it for 30 seconds. It\u2019ll feel dumb and that\u2019s ok.  My request for you to smile just now didn\u2019t have any narcissistic roots. I can\u2019t see you, so it\u2019s not that it\u2019d be visually appealing to me. Instead, I want to show you a psychological trick for your own benefit.   I\u2019m asked to smile a lot. I don\u2019t always do it, but I like the sentiment. It\u2019s not that they want to see someone who\u2019s visually appealing. Actually, I feel like it\u2019s pretty selfless.   To those I actually show my smile to, I am often complimented on my \u201cnice smile\u201d. Do you feel like compliments are selfish? If anything, people asking me to smile makes me feel better about showing I\u2019m in a positive mood.  By the way, this is coming from a mildly pessimistic introvert.","human_ref_B":"i wouldn\u2019t call it rude i would just say it\u2019s kind of uncomfortable. I\u2019ve been told by random men walking in public numerous times things like \u201csmile honey\u201d and stuff and it just made me uncomfortable\ud83d\udc80 however in their mind, assuming they\u2019re not trying to b creepy, they\u2019re probably thinking that they made someone who may have been having a bad day feel a little better","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1696.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"z32qlz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Telling random people to smile is rude and inconsiderate of their feelings My view is that when people tell others to smile it's often comes from a place of selfishness rather than wanting that person to express themselves how they see fit. People want to see others smile mainly for aesthetic purposes than anything else. When you see someone down the street you have absolutely no idea what trials & tribulations they've faced, their life story, what they are currently going through and so on. So I think it's extremely dismissive to tell someone to put on a mask which is a smile because it personally looks appealing to you rather than actually try to brighten that persons day in any other regards. Like imagine if something tragic just happened to you where you lost your job, a love one got into a car accident or something in which it negatively impacted you. How would you feel if someone randomly came up and told you \"smile!\". Me personally it would piss me off quite a bit.  And on top of that nobody owes anyone anything when it comes to facial expression. How one chooses to express their face has no impact on anyone else's well being. Peoples faces aren't here to make someone else feel better so I feel like telling someone how they should handle their facial expression isn't any different than telling them how they should dress, walk etc. in my opinion telling people to smile comes from a form a narcissism in a sense that you want others to express themselves just for your own personal benefit. Because you find someone smiling more aesthetically pleasing than someone who doesn't look happy. Well what do you guys think?","c_root_id_A":"ixkkcbw","c_root_id_B":"ixjn6dx","created_at_utc_A":1669260067,"created_at_utc_B":1669244124,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Man you must hate professional photographers","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s this psychological trick that if you force yourself to smile for a while, you\u2019ll actually influence yourself to be happy.  Try it. Smile. Just try it for 30 seconds. It\u2019ll feel dumb and that\u2019s ok.  My request for you to smile just now didn\u2019t have any narcissistic roots. I can\u2019t see you, so it\u2019s not that it\u2019d be visually appealing to me. Instead, I want to show you a psychological trick for your own benefit.   I\u2019m asked to smile a lot. I don\u2019t always do it, but I like the sentiment. It\u2019s not that they want to see someone who\u2019s visually appealing. Actually, I feel like it\u2019s pretty selfless.   To those I actually show my smile to, I am often complimented on my \u201cnice smile\u201d. Do you feel like compliments are selfish? If anything, people asking me to smile makes me feel better about showing I\u2019m in a positive mood.  By the way, this is coming from a mildly pessimistic introvert.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15943.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"o26gwl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: A woman assuming a man will pay for the first date is no worse than a man assuming a woman will take his last name in marriage Are both assumptions sexist? Yes! Should they both be done away with? Also yes! But that isn\u2019t the point of my view on these things.   If a woman assumes a man is going to pay for the first date, that\u2019s usually because for hundreds of years society has been structured so that only men really get to earn a living, women are just tag alongs. Social inertia means that even if the original condition in which a behavior arose is removed, the behavior will continue for some time.   If a man assumes a woman will take his name after marriage, the same socio-cultural factors come into play as with the first date assumptions, namely that women were add ons to a man\u2019s existence.   So Change My View that it\u2019s no more offensive for a woman to expect a man to pay for their first date than it is for a man to expect a woman to take his name  (Note: my viewpoint is that the marriage assumption is AT LEAST as offensive as the date one. Which means that my view is already leaning towards that it could be MORE offensive, so that side doesn\u2019t need to be argued by any comments)","c_root_id_A":"h24s0lt","c_root_id_B":"h24qa4i","created_at_utc_A":1623961803,"created_at_utc_B":1623961075,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I think it is fair to assume the inviter to the first date pays for the invitee.  Since men do most of the inviting, it is usually them that pay for the first date.  So if a woman gets asked to go grab a drink or go to the movies or got for ice cream, she can reasonably expect for the man to pay.  I haven't been on that many first dates, but I have always been the one being asked out so I always assumed the other party will pay.  Of course I always came prepared to pay in case the other person did not feel like they should.  My policy was to only go on cheap dates (get a cup of coffee kind of thing) so usually the guy paid.  If he was too cheap to spend several dollars on a first date for a girl he likes, then I probably would not want to continue dating them.","human_ref_B":"Money doesn\u2019t come out of your pocket when you take a man\u2019s last name, but paying for a first date does, which is why it can be perceived as worse. It can also show a sense of entitlement if a woman expects it on the first date, whether you think that\u2019s right or wrong, a lot of men think that and can be turned off. Not the greatest argument, but that\u2019s the best I could come up with. This is a pretty good CMV actually. Well done.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":728.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"o26gwl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: A woman assuming a man will pay for the first date is no worse than a man assuming a woman will take his last name in marriage Are both assumptions sexist? Yes! Should they both be done away with? Also yes! But that isn\u2019t the point of my view on these things.   If a woman assumes a man is going to pay for the first date, that\u2019s usually because for hundreds of years society has been structured so that only men really get to earn a living, women are just tag alongs. Social inertia means that even if the original condition in which a behavior arose is removed, the behavior will continue for some time.   If a man assumes a woman will take his name after marriage, the same socio-cultural factors come into play as with the first date assumptions, namely that women were add ons to a man\u2019s existence.   So Change My View that it\u2019s no more offensive for a woman to expect a man to pay for their first date than it is for a man to expect a woman to take his name  (Note: my viewpoint is that the marriage assumption is AT LEAST as offensive as the date one. Which means that my view is already leaning towards that it could be MORE offensive, so that side doesn\u2019t need to be argued by any comments)","c_root_id_A":"h253a9z","c_root_id_B":"h24t63i","created_at_utc_A":1623966829,"created_at_utc_B":1623962297,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I agree with your analysis of the expectations, social inertia, & the general behaviors at play here. I think I disagree with your comparison of the two scenarios, and thus your claim.  MY REASONING:  Financial transactions happen all the time. You can definitely argue that the expectation for someone to make a financial transaction for you behalf is wrong\/right.  Changing a last name is a transaction of identity. You are trading away a part of your identity (assuming you at least slightly identify with your family's namesake\/heritage).  I think it is perfectly reasonable (for most people anyway) to put more weight to a transaction of identity vs. a transaction of goods\/services\/assets. Thus, it is worse (again, for *most* people) to be expected to transact their identity.","human_ref_B":"They\u2019re only really similar in principle the last name debacle has longer lasting consequences than who pays for the first date.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4532.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"7s692p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: Feeling like your female reproductive system and\/or pussy is part of what makes you feel like a woman isn't inherently transphobic or trans exclusionary. I have seen a lot lot of backlash against women in the Women's March who carry signs relating to their pussy (such as \"Stay Out of My Pussy\") and wear pink pussy hats. (I personally find pink pussy hats silly but that is neither here nor there). The backlash has been in the form of fb statuses, tweets, and think pieces that claim that talking about a pussy as a part of your experience of womanhood is trans exclusionary.  While I agree that not all woman have vaginas and not all people with vaginas are women I don't think it is fair to tell someone that what makes them personally feel like a woman is false. Every woman has different things that make them connect with the idea of being a woman (some are choices and some aren't). Some women feel that their long hair makes them feel womanly while some women with short hair say their short hair brings out their feminine features. Same can be said for wearing make up or not. When it comes to bodies some women with thin waistlines say that makes them feel like a woman while some women with curves feel like their curves are part of their womanly identity.   I don't think there is anything wrong with a woman feeling like her pussy or the fact that she can give birth is part of what makes her feel connected to the word woman as long as she recognizes that not all women have vaginas or the ability to give birth and they are still just as much of a woman as she is. After all I have heard from some trans women that their penis feels like part of their personal womanhood and that is acceptable too.  It is impossible to connect all women with a single trait other than their shared identity of describing themselves as women. Why can't having a vagina, which is a trait shared by 99% of women, be an acceptable thing to connect with other women about?   The female reproductive system is treated unfairly by the government. Saying that doesn't mean I don't agree that healthcare for trans women (and men) is also unjust. This backlash feels like their saying \"the injustices of my group are worse than yours therefore your injustices shouldn't be fought for.\"  I think it is important for feminism to be intersectional, I just also think is is ok to accept that everyone identifies the way they do for their own specific and personal reasons. Doing so doesn't mean they don't accept you for having your own different or even contradictory personal reasons for sharing that label. But this idea seems to be thought of as harmful to the trans-community so hey reddit change my view!","c_root_id_A":"dt2anty","c_root_id_B":"dt2cb1m","created_at_utc_A":1516634848,"created_at_utc_B":1516636607,"score_A":6,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"The problem here is that different people are using a different definition of ''woman'' - so if one person says that what makes her a woman is that she is biologically female, then that implies that the definition of ''woman'' is ''biologically female person'' - why else would her biological sex have anything to do with her being a ''woman''?  If the new definition of ''woman'' is now an utterly meaningless ''gender identity'' which has no basis in one's biological sex, then a person's female reproductive organs are irrelevant to their ''gender identity''.","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I could say to myself, \"I feel like a man when I eat Cheerios every day,\" and that's fine. I might genuinely have something inside of me that provides a sense of belonging and association with being male whenever I eat Cheerios. Who cares. Am I saying that I think other men who don't eat Cheerios are not \"real\" men? Nope, I just feel like a man when I eat them. And that may also imply that I feel like less of a man if I don't eat them.  But what if almost *everyone* on earth associated eating Cheerios with being a man, even the women? And then I come along, and I just don't like the taste of Cheerios. Because the association between Cheerios and manhood is so widespread, people will also assume the opposite: if you *don't* eat Cheerios, you are not a real man.  In your example, if an individual woman is just saying that as a simply personal statement, then you're correct. She can experience a sense of belonging to her gender because of her sex. I don't think feeling that way is wrong, it actually seems pretty rational to me. And it doesn't necessarily imply that she also thinks \"Not having a vagina is not feminine\". But when an overwhelming portion of a modern society feels a certain way, that feeling \/ belief system becomes part of society, and creates exclusion of people who do not feel that same way. It becomes a truth in society.  A woman who thinks this way is implicitly saying that her gender (\"I feel like a woman\") is directly tied to her biological sex (\"I have a vagina \/ female sex organs\"), which is objectively trans-exclusive, *especially* because that usually means \"If I didn't have a vagina, I would feel like less of a woman,\" and *especially* when it is the majority view.  This doesn't necessarily mean that trans people are offended by this idea, by the way. I can't really speak much towards that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1759.0,"score_ratio":3.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"7s692p","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: Feeling like your female reproductive system and\/or pussy is part of what makes you feel like a woman isn't inherently transphobic or trans exclusionary. I have seen a lot lot of backlash against women in the Women's March who carry signs relating to their pussy (such as \"Stay Out of My Pussy\") and wear pink pussy hats. (I personally find pink pussy hats silly but that is neither here nor there). The backlash has been in the form of fb statuses, tweets, and think pieces that claim that talking about a pussy as a part of your experience of womanhood is trans exclusionary.  While I agree that not all woman have vaginas and not all people with vaginas are women I don't think it is fair to tell someone that what makes them personally feel like a woman is false. Every woman has different things that make them connect with the idea of being a woman (some are choices and some aren't). Some women feel that their long hair makes them feel womanly while some women with short hair say their short hair brings out their feminine features. Same can be said for wearing make up or not. When it comes to bodies some women with thin waistlines say that makes them feel like a woman while some women with curves feel like their curves are part of their womanly identity.   I don't think there is anything wrong with a woman feeling like her pussy or the fact that she can give birth is part of what makes her feel connected to the word woman as long as she recognizes that not all women have vaginas or the ability to give birth and they are still just as much of a woman as she is. After all I have heard from some trans women that their penis feels like part of their personal womanhood and that is acceptable too.  It is impossible to connect all women with a single trait other than their shared identity of describing themselves as women. Why can't having a vagina, which is a trait shared by 99% of women, be an acceptable thing to connect with other women about?   The female reproductive system is treated unfairly by the government. Saying that doesn't mean I don't agree that healthcare for trans women (and men) is also unjust. This backlash feels like their saying \"the injustices of my group are worse than yours therefore your injustices shouldn't be fought for.\"  I think it is important for feminism to be intersectional, I just also think is is ok to accept that everyone identifies the way they do for their own specific and personal reasons. Doing so doesn't mean they don't accept you for having your own different or even contradictory personal reasons for sharing that label. But this idea seems to be thought of as harmful to the trans-community so hey reddit change my view!","c_root_id_A":"dt2anty","c_root_id_B":"dt31j8s","created_at_utc_A":1516634848,"created_at_utc_B":1516660405,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The problem here is that different people are using a different definition of ''woman'' - so if one person says that what makes her a woman is that she is biologically female, then that implies that the definition of ''woman'' is ''biologically female person'' - why else would her biological sex have anything to do with her being a ''woman''?  If the new definition of ''woman'' is now an utterly meaningless ''gender identity'' which has no basis in one's biological sex, then a person's female reproductive organs are irrelevant to their ''gender identity''.","human_ref_B":"Hmmm. Well that's kind of a personal feeling not one anyone can quantify as you must say or feel this particular thing towards your femininity, no one ha she right to control that in other people. Having a pussy per say never made me feel like a woman, but having a child did because it was something profound I could experience that no one not born biologically a woman could. Now is this true for all women? Well no this is juts my personal experience, my personal bond with my feminine self. Does that make it any less of me? Again no because it's a personal thing.   I've never been overly girly in my life, I hate dresses and heels with a passion. My mother could tell you stories of me purposefully attempting to destroy them in the roughest ways I could so she would stop buying them for me. I even stuck gum in my hair at 8 so she would cut it because I'd didn't like having long tow head blonde hair. To some Trans people they think that is what makes them women, ie makeup, dresses, and such nonsense. I say nonsense because to me it is, does that mean that can't be there definition well no, this is just my personal definition.   I've never questioned if I were female just because I liked playing sports, I joined arguably one of the most male dominant professions in the military. I never felt over feminine and  I was just fine with that. Didn't mean I wasn't who I was just meant well I like this as opposed to doing that. What connected me to it was giving birth. That's not transphobic in any way because it's not a slam on them it's just my perception of what makes me feel more womanly.  Arguably I could say they are cis phobic by saying things like, it's dirty for women not to shave their leg, or they have to do this or that to be a woman. No I don't tell anyone else how to feel a connection with whatever and they sure as hell don't have the right to tell me shit about my experiences.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25557.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"ueraz7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The EU's plan to require USB-C for most electronics will have no downsides for consumers The European Union plans to require electronics manufacturers to use USB-C where possible. There are exceptions for small items like earbuds, and energy hungry items like PCs. If USB-C would work, that will be required.  I think this is a good thing, and I can't think of any downsides for consumers. USB-C supports up to 100W charging, 10 Gbps of data, and is universal.  That said, Apple is clearly opposed to this law. There may be a use case that the USB-C spec doesn't cover, leading to some fancy new tech not being realized. Would this law cause any problems for consumers?","c_root_id_A":"i6ozplb","c_root_id_B":"i6ozf6a","created_at_utc_A":1651255165,"created_at_utc_B":1651255044,"score_A":1409,"score_B":229,"human_ref_A":"If this has been done a decade ago then we wouldn't have had USB C at all  We would all be using micro USB which was decided to be the gold standard then  In fact I had a Nokia N85 which didnt have the round nokia pin but a micro USB charging port for this exact reason as they feared alternate chargers would be outlawed and tried to be ahead of the trend  In short it stifles innovation  Goverment shouldn't disctate standards in a space that is still seeing innovation  The only place this has worked is in power plug points. But as anyone who has crossed their country borders knows this is a local success but a global failure. Travel adaptors galore!","human_ref_B":"While the upsides probably outweigh the downsides, let's not pretend that there are _no_ downsides at all:  - It will stifle innovation.  When Lightning came out it was a _better_ standard than anything that came before it.  The plug was smaller and reversible, helping to save space for internal components.  If someone develops USB-D or whatever, they won't be able to add it to their phones because the law says USB-C is mandatory.  - It will lock folks out of their current ecosystem.  Many of us have a ton of lightning accessories because that has been the iPhone standard for a decade.  I'll now either have to use an adaptor for _everything_ or buy all new accessories - neither of which really appeal to me.  Those are both real downsides to consider.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":121.0,"score_ratio":6.1528384279}
+{"post_id":"ueraz7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The EU's plan to require USB-C for most electronics will have no downsides for consumers The European Union plans to require electronics manufacturers to use USB-C where possible. There are exceptions for small items like earbuds, and energy hungry items like PCs. If USB-C would work, that will be required.  I think this is a good thing, and I can't think of any downsides for consumers. USB-C supports up to 100W charging, 10 Gbps of data, and is universal.  That said, Apple is clearly opposed to this law. There may be a use case that the USB-C spec doesn't cover, leading to some fancy new tech not being realized. Would this law cause any problems for consumers?","c_root_id_A":"i6p1s6d","c_root_id_B":"i6p0nih","created_at_utc_A":1651256042,"created_at_utc_B":1651255560,"score_A":124,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":">That said, Apple is clearly opposed to this law.  Probably more in principle. Apple is already using USB-C for everything but iPhones, and I think maybe Air Pods, so they're clearly in on the technology. It's probably because the Lighting connector is quite a bit smaller, which matters in thin devices.","human_ref_B":"Not sure if this really applies to your argument, but I don't like how easy it is for a USB-C plug to fall out.  I can be doing a live stream and lose the camera, audio, and internet because they're all plugged in to one USB-C dongle.  There are many ways to fix this, but a locking port would be nice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":482.0,"score_ratio":4.5925925926}
+{"post_id":"ueraz7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The EU's plan to require USB-C for most electronics will have no downsides for consumers The European Union plans to require electronics manufacturers to use USB-C where possible. There are exceptions for small items like earbuds, and energy hungry items like PCs. If USB-C would work, that will be required.  I think this is a good thing, and I can't think of any downsides for consumers. USB-C supports up to 100W charging, 10 Gbps of data, and is universal.  That said, Apple is clearly opposed to this law. There may be a use case that the USB-C spec doesn't cover, leading to some fancy new tech not being realized. Would this law cause any problems for consumers?","c_root_id_A":"i6p0nih","c_root_id_B":"i6p7tpj","created_at_utc_A":1651255560,"created_at_utc_B":1651258622,"score_A":27,"score_B":40,"human_ref_A":"Not sure if this really applies to your argument, but I don't like how easy it is for a USB-C plug to fall out.  I can be doing a live stream and lose the camera, audio, and internet because they're all plugged in to one USB-C dongle.  There are many ways to fix this, but a locking port would be nice.","human_ref_B":"USB-C is not as trivial to use as it seems:  Though it always fits mechanically and is always electrically safe to plug in, it is not obvious which combination of cable, adapter and device allows charging at which power. Most cables don't show power ratings and even when they do, there are so many variants that most people would just get confused.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3062.0,"score_ratio":1.4814814815}
+{"post_id":"ueraz7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The EU's plan to require USB-C for most electronics will have no downsides for consumers The European Union plans to require electronics manufacturers to use USB-C where possible. There are exceptions for small items like earbuds, and energy hungry items like PCs. If USB-C would work, that will be required.  I think this is a good thing, and I can't think of any downsides for consumers. USB-C supports up to 100W charging, 10 Gbps of data, and is universal.  That said, Apple is clearly opposed to this law. There may be a use case that the USB-C spec doesn't cover, leading to some fancy new tech not being realized. Would this law cause any problems for consumers?","c_root_id_A":"i6p69lg","c_root_id_B":"i6p7tpj","created_at_utc_A":1651257955,"created_at_utc_B":1651258622,"score_A":9,"score_B":40,"human_ref_A":"USB C on paper sounds great. But it has numerous downsides. It is a much more complicated standard than say the normal audio jack or HDMI. It is not that reliable (compared to these), has heavier drivers and need more testing. These are additional costs that manufacturers (and consumers) will have to bear if the law covers TV, GPUs or similar stuff.","human_ref_B":"USB-C is not as trivial to use as it seems:  Though it always fits mechanically and is always electrically safe to plug in, it is not obvious which combination of cable, adapter and device allows charging at which power. Most cables don't show power ratings and even when they do, there are so many variants that most people would just get confused.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":667.0,"score_ratio":4.4444444444}
+{"post_id":"ueraz7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The EU's plan to require USB-C for most electronics will have no downsides for consumers The European Union plans to require electronics manufacturers to use USB-C where possible. There are exceptions for small items like earbuds, and energy hungry items like PCs. If USB-C would work, that will be required.  I think this is a good thing, and I can't think of any downsides for consumers. USB-C supports up to 100W charging, 10 Gbps of data, and is universal.  That said, Apple is clearly opposed to this law. There may be a use case that the USB-C spec doesn't cover, leading to some fancy new tech not being realized. Would this law cause any problems for consumers?","c_root_id_A":"i6pxsjx","c_root_id_B":"i6p69lg","created_at_utc_A":1651270084,"created_at_utc_B":1651257955,"score_A":11,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I got some user-end cons: My laptop only takes USB-C. It has to stick straight out, perpendicular to the laptop. The portability of the laptop is not very compatible with this, where as jack-style chargers were able to swivel around the charging point and be shaped to run perpendicular to the device. This USB-C already sits with slack in the port, and I'm skeptical about how this will affect the longevity for a desired use of 3-5 years. So in summary 1) Not ideal for every device 2) durability concerns for devices. I see that you note an exception for PCs, but the principles likely apply beyond PCs.","human_ref_B":"USB C on paper sounds great. But it has numerous downsides. It is a much more complicated standard than say the normal audio jack or HDMI. It is not that reliable (compared to these), has heavier drivers and need more testing. These are additional costs that manufacturers (and consumers) will have to bear if the law covers TV, GPUs or similar stuff.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12129.0,"score_ratio":1.2222222222}
+{"post_id":"ice6jr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: It's not exploitation to use resources from animals if acquiring those resources doesn't harm the animals. Therefore, eating eggs from a privately owned chicken, eating honey, and using wool should be considered vegan. Full disclosure, I am not vegan, but respect and support vegans. I am not here to bash vegans or veganism, only to discuss what I think should be considered vegan.  As far as I understand it, veganism as a lifestyle (not just as a diet) is about reducing harm to and not participating in the exploitation of animals. Obviously everyone has their own way of living a vegan life and veganism means something different to everyone, but in my opinion, there are certain ethical ways to use resources from animals.  * EGGS    * Hens lay eggs whether they're fertilized or not, so if someone owned a hen or two and ate the eggs that they were going to lay anyway, they are just making sure that those eggs aren't going to waste. This is different from buying eggs from a company that practices factory farming and has chickens for the sole purpose of profit, which would not be ethical. * HONEY    * Similarly, bees make honey whether or not anyone is there to harvest it, and they make more than they could possibly ever use. Taking the excess is, as I understand it, actually beneficial to the bees. In addition, beekeeping can be seen as a form of conservation, as bees are endangered, which I think is ethical. * WOOL    * Domesticated sheep need to be sheared regularly. As shearing is just a haircut for the sheep, it is not harming the animals or exploiting them. The wool would just go to waste anyway, so making it into yarn or using it for other purposes should be considered ethical.","c_root_id_A":"g2234dq","c_root_id_B":"g221739","created_at_utc_A":1597802299,"created_at_utc_B":1597801266,"score_A":16,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"i have chickens.  I like eggs.    However, the idea that I'm not harming chickens in order to have eggs is almost an impossible one to fathom.  The entire existance of a chicken - their \"nature\" - has been wrapped around serving us.  their aren't gonna be wild chickens, but what they definitely would be doing if there were is living inside my chicken coop.  If we think that bondage and servitude are forms of harm, then I think we're harming chickens.  I'd ask the chicken, but the chicken is profoundly stupid and would not understand.  I also have bee hives. Bees are less endangered if you have the bees and don't take the honey.  So...making environments for bees seems wonderful, but making that environment's existence conditional on being able to steel their work-product seems a little disingenuous doesn't it?  They do make more than they need, but not if they are in an environment that has risks (like humans, bears - mine get taken out by a badger on occasion).    Domesticated sheep.  Difficult animals - ornery.  The sheep are indeed in need of sheering, but only because we've enslaved them for so long and bred them.  This seems a bit like beating your child for so long that they can't sleep anymore if you don't smack them with a stick and then saying \"i'm doing it as gift so my child can sleep\".  We've created this animal for all intents and purposes, we can't then excuse our use of them on the grounds that they need us.  We created the need.  The point is, it's _clearly_ exploitation.  We exploit the environment for our benefit all the time.  The bees do to, so do the sheep.  At some level, evolution tells us that the sheep are exploiting us by having us ensure their survival and the bees thrive because we fend of the badgers (not me, I fail at that repeatedly...but...in theory!).","human_ref_B":"For the eggs - generally what I hear is that the ethical issues with backyard eggs comes from the sourcing of the chickens. If you buy four hens, four roosters got tossed in the shredder. The constant laying hens have been bred for also puts a lot of stress on their bodies, and they are supposed to be able to eat their own eggs to regain nutrients they lose laying them, but I believe there are supplements for them that can replace this. Ultimately, if someone wants to rescue some chickens and have eggs, I don\u2019t have much issue with it provided they\u2019re well cared for, though if your motivations are solely to obtain eggs I\u2019d have concerns that you really had the chickens\u2019 best interests at heart.  Bees are harmed and killed in the honey industry, and domestic bees are harmful to native bee populations, who are better pollinators for native species. Here is a short, interesting video on the topic.  For wool, sheep raised commercially for it are often subject to poor living conditions and are slaughtered once past peak production. Again, if someone wants to rescue a sheep and use the wool they have to shear, sure, whatever, but how realistic a situation is this for 99.99% of people?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1033.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"ice6jr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: It's not exploitation to use resources from animals if acquiring those resources doesn't harm the animals. Therefore, eating eggs from a privately owned chicken, eating honey, and using wool should be considered vegan. Full disclosure, I am not vegan, but respect and support vegans. I am not here to bash vegans or veganism, only to discuss what I think should be considered vegan.  As far as I understand it, veganism as a lifestyle (not just as a diet) is about reducing harm to and not participating in the exploitation of animals. Obviously everyone has their own way of living a vegan life and veganism means something different to everyone, but in my opinion, there are certain ethical ways to use resources from animals.  * EGGS    * Hens lay eggs whether they're fertilized or not, so if someone owned a hen or two and ate the eggs that they were going to lay anyway, they are just making sure that those eggs aren't going to waste. This is different from buying eggs from a company that practices factory farming and has chickens for the sole purpose of profit, which would not be ethical. * HONEY    * Similarly, bees make honey whether or not anyone is there to harvest it, and they make more than they could possibly ever use. Taking the excess is, as I understand it, actually beneficial to the bees. In addition, beekeeping can be seen as a form of conservation, as bees are endangered, which I think is ethical. * WOOL    * Domesticated sheep need to be sheared regularly. As shearing is just a haircut for the sheep, it is not harming the animals or exploiting them. The wool would just go to waste anyway, so making it into yarn or using it for other purposes should be considered ethical.","c_root_id_A":"g2234dq","c_root_id_B":"g21zwi0","created_at_utc_A":1597802299,"created_at_utc_B":1597800566,"score_A":16,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"i have chickens.  I like eggs.    However, the idea that I'm not harming chickens in order to have eggs is almost an impossible one to fathom.  The entire existance of a chicken - their \"nature\" - has been wrapped around serving us.  their aren't gonna be wild chickens, but what they definitely would be doing if there were is living inside my chicken coop.  If we think that bondage and servitude are forms of harm, then I think we're harming chickens.  I'd ask the chicken, but the chicken is profoundly stupid and would not understand.  I also have bee hives. Bees are less endangered if you have the bees and don't take the honey.  So...making environments for bees seems wonderful, but making that environment's existence conditional on being able to steel their work-product seems a little disingenuous doesn't it?  They do make more than they need, but not if they are in an environment that has risks (like humans, bears - mine get taken out by a badger on occasion).    Domesticated sheep.  Difficult animals - ornery.  The sheep are indeed in need of sheering, but only because we've enslaved them for so long and bred them.  This seems a bit like beating your child for so long that they can't sleep anymore if you don't smack them with a stick and then saying \"i'm doing it as gift so my child can sleep\".  We've created this animal for all intents and purposes, we can't then excuse our use of them on the grounds that they need us.  We created the need.  The point is, it's _clearly_ exploitation.  We exploit the environment for our benefit all the time.  The bees do to, so do the sheep.  At some level, evolution tells us that the sheep are exploiting us by having us ensure their survival and the bees thrive because we fend of the badgers (not me, I fail at that repeatedly...but...in theory!).","human_ref_B":">As far as I understand it, veganism as a lifestyle (not just as a diet) is about reducing harm to and not participating in the exploitation of animals.   Actually, veganism is about abstaining from the use of animal products. As eggs, honey, and wool are animal products, they are proscribed by veganism.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1733.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"ice6jr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: It's not exploitation to use resources from animals if acquiring those resources doesn't harm the animals. Therefore, eating eggs from a privately owned chicken, eating honey, and using wool should be considered vegan. Full disclosure, I am not vegan, but respect and support vegans. I am not here to bash vegans or veganism, only to discuss what I think should be considered vegan.  As far as I understand it, veganism as a lifestyle (not just as a diet) is about reducing harm to and not participating in the exploitation of animals. Obviously everyone has their own way of living a vegan life and veganism means something different to everyone, but in my opinion, there are certain ethical ways to use resources from animals.  * EGGS    * Hens lay eggs whether they're fertilized or not, so if someone owned a hen or two and ate the eggs that they were going to lay anyway, they are just making sure that those eggs aren't going to waste. This is different from buying eggs from a company that practices factory farming and has chickens for the sole purpose of profit, which would not be ethical. * HONEY    * Similarly, bees make honey whether or not anyone is there to harvest it, and they make more than they could possibly ever use. Taking the excess is, as I understand it, actually beneficial to the bees. In addition, beekeeping can be seen as a form of conservation, as bees are endangered, which I think is ethical. * WOOL    * Domesticated sheep need to be sheared regularly. As shearing is just a haircut for the sheep, it is not harming the animals or exploiting them. The wool would just go to waste anyway, so making it into yarn or using it for other purposes should be considered ethical.","c_root_id_A":"g2234dq","c_root_id_B":"g222088","created_at_utc_A":1597802299,"created_at_utc_B":1597801693,"score_A":16,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"i have chickens.  I like eggs.    However, the idea that I'm not harming chickens in order to have eggs is almost an impossible one to fathom.  The entire existance of a chicken - their \"nature\" - has been wrapped around serving us.  their aren't gonna be wild chickens, but what they definitely would be doing if there were is living inside my chicken coop.  If we think that bondage and servitude are forms of harm, then I think we're harming chickens.  I'd ask the chicken, but the chicken is profoundly stupid and would not understand.  I also have bee hives. Bees are less endangered if you have the bees and don't take the honey.  So...making environments for bees seems wonderful, but making that environment's existence conditional on being able to steel their work-product seems a little disingenuous doesn't it?  They do make more than they need, but not if they are in an environment that has risks (like humans, bears - mine get taken out by a badger on occasion).    Domesticated sheep.  Difficult animals - ornery.  The sheep are indeed in need of sheering, but only because we've enslaved them for so long and bred them.  This seems a bit like beating your child for so long that they can't sleep anymore if you don't smack them with a stick and then saying \"i'm doing it as gift so my child can sleep\".  We've created this animal for all intents and purposes, we can't then excuse our use of them on the grounds that they need us.  We created the need.  The point is, it's _clearly_ exploitation.  We exploit the environment for our benefit all the time.  The bees do to, so do the sheep.  At some level, evolution tells us that the sheep are exploiting us by having us ensure their survival and the bees thrive because we fend of the badgers (not me, I fail at that repeatedly...but...in theory!).","human_ref_B":"There is some debate about ethical backyard eggs, but I personally don't eat them regardless of where they came from. Honey is meant for bee colonies and is definitely considered an animal product.  I'd advise you to watch this video before claiming that wool is cruelty free...  \\*\\*\\*NSFW\\*\\*\\* https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=2zjf-I4Y2Hw","labels":1,"seconds_difference":606.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"ice6jr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: It's not exploitation to use resources from animals if acquiring those resources doesn't harm the animals. Therefore, eating eggs from a privately owned chicken, eating honey, and using wool should be considered vegan. Full disclosure, I am not vegan, but respect and support vegans. I am not here to bash vegans or veganism, only to discuss what I think should be considered vegan.  As far as I understand it, veganism as a lifestyle (not just as a diet) is about reducing harm to and not participating in the exploitation of animals. Obviously everyone has their own way of living a vegan life and veganism means something different to everyone, but in my opinion, there are certain ethical ways to use resources from animals.  * EGGS    * Hens lay eggs whether they're fertilized or not, so if someone owned a hen or two and ate the eggs that they were going to lay anyway, they are just making sure that those eggs aren't going to waste. This is different from buying eggs from a company that practices factory farming and has chickens for the sole purpose of profit, which would not be ethical. * HONEY    * Similarly, bees make honey whether or not anyone is there to harvest it, and they make more than they could possibly ever use. Taking the excess is, as I understand it, actually beneficial to the bees. In addition, beekeeping can be seen as a form of conservation, as bees are endangered, which I think is ethical. * WOOL    * Domesticated sheep need to be sheared regularly. As shearing is just a haircut for the sheep, it is not harming the animals or exploiting them. The wool would just go to waste anyway, so making it into yarn or using it for other purposes should be considered ethical.","c_root_id_A":"g220os9","c_root_id_B":"g2234dq","created_at_utc_A":1597800991,"created_at_utc_B":1597802299,"score_A":2,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"By the definition it's not vegan to do any of those things. However, it is according to the spirit of animal welfare.","human_ref_B":"i have chickens.  I like eggs.    However, the idea that I'm not harming chickens in order to have eggs is almost an impossible one to fathom.  The entire existance of a chicken - their \"nature\" - has been wrapped around serving us.  their aren't gonna be wild chickens, but what they definitely would be doing if there were is living inside my chicken coop.  If we think that bondage and servitude are forms of harm, then I think we're harming chickens.  I'd ask the chicken, but the chicken is profoundly stupid and would not understand.  I also have bee hives. Bees are less endangered if you have the bees and don't take the honey.  So...making environments for bees seems wonderful, but making that environment's existence conditional on being able to steel their work-product seems a little disingenuous doesn't it?  They do make more than they need, but not if they are in an environment that has risks (like humans, bears - mine get taken out by a badger on occasion).    Domesticated sheep.  Difficult animals - ornery.  The sheep are indeed in need of sheering, but only because we've enslaved them for so long and bred them.  This seems a bit like beating your child for so long that they can't sleep anymore if you don't smack them with a stick and then saying \"i'm doing it as gift so my child can sleep\".  We've created this animal for all intents and purposes, we can't then excuse our use of them on the grounds that they need us.  We created the need.  The point is, it's _clearly_ exploitation.  We exploit the environment for our benefit all the time.  The bees do to, so do the sheep.  At some level, evolution tells us that the sheep are exploiting us by having us ensure their survival and the bees thrive because we fend of the badgers (not me, I fail at that repeatedly...but...in theory!).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1308.0,"score_ratio":8.0}
+{"post_id":"ice6jr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: It's not exploitation to use resources from animals if acquiring those resources doesn't harm the animals. Therefore, eating eggs from a privately owned chicken, eating honey, and using wool should be considered vegan. Full disclosure, I am not vegan, but respect and support vegans. I am not here to bash vegans or veganism, only to discuss what I think should be considered vegan.  As far as I understand it, veganism as a lifestyle (not just as a diet) is about reducing harm to and not participating in the exploitation of animals. Obviously everyone has their own way of living a vegan life and veganism means something different to everyone, but in my opinion, there are certain ethical ways to use resources from animals.  * EGGS    * Hens lay eggs whether they're fertilized or not, so if someone owned a hen or two and ate the eggs that they were going to lay anyway, they are just making sure that those eggs aren't going to waste. This is different from buying eggs from a company that practices factory farming and has chickens for the sole purpose of profit, which would not be ethical. * HONEY    * Similarly, bees make honey whether or not anyone is there to harvest it, and they make more than they could possibly ever use. Taking the excess is, as I understand it, actually beneficial to the bees. In addition, beekeeping can be seen as a form of conservation, as bees are endangered, which I think is ethical. * WOOL    * Domesticated sheep need to be sheared regularly. As shearing is just a haircut for the sheep, it is not harming the animals or exploiting them. The wool would just go to waste anyway, so making it into yarn or using it for other purposes should be considered ethical.","c_root_id_A":"g221739","c_root_id_B":"g21zwi0","created_at_utc_A":1597801266,"created_at_utc_B":1597800566,"score_A":12,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"For the eggs - generally what I hear is that the ethical issues with backyard eggs comes from the sourcing of the chickens. If you buy four hens, four roosters got tossed in the shredder. The constant laying hens have been bred for also puts a lot of stress on their bodies, and they are supposed to be able to eat their own eggs to regain nutrients they lose laying them, but I believe there are supplements for them that can replace this. Ultimately, if someone wants to rescue some chickens and have eggs, I don\u2019t have much issue with it provided they\u2019re well cared for, though if your motivations are solely to obtain eggs I\u2019d have concerns that you really had the chickens\u2019 best interests at heart.  Bees are harmed and killed in the honey industry, and domestic bees are harmful to native bee populations, who are better pollinators for native species. Here is a short, interesting video on the topic.  For wool, sheep raised commercially for it are often subject to poor living conditions and are slaughtered once past peak production. Again, if someone wants to rescue a sheep and use the wool they have to shear, sure, whatever, but how realistic a situation is this for 99.99% of people?","human_ref_B":">As far as I understand it, veganism as a lifestyle (not just as a diet) is about reducing harm to and not participating in the exploitation of animals.   Actually, veganism is about abstaining from the use of animal products. As eggs, honey, and wool are animal products, they are proscribed by veganism.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":700.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"ice6jr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: It's not exploitation to use resources from animals if acquiring those resources doesn't harm the animals. Therefore, eating eggs from a privately owned chicken, eating honey, and using wool should be considered vegan. Full disclosure, I am not vegan, but respect and support vegans. I am not here to bash vegans or veganism, only to discuss what I think should be considered vegan.  As far as I understand it, veganism as a lifestyle (not just as a diet) is about reducing harm to and not participating in the exploitation of animals. Obviously everyone has their own way of living a vegan life and veganism means something different to everyone, but in my opinion, there are certain ethical ways to use resources from animals.  * EGGS    * Hens lay eggs whether they're fertilized or not, so if someone owned a hen or two and ate the eggs that they were going to lay anyway, they are just making sure that those eggs aren't going to waste. This is different from buying eggs from a company that practices factory farming and has chickens for the sole purpose of profit, which would not be ethical. * HONEY    * Similarly, bees make honey whether or not anyone is there to harvest it, and they make more than they could possibly ever use. Taking the excess is, as I understand it, actually beneficial to the bees. In addition, beekeeping can be seen as a form of conservation, as bees are endangered, which I think is ethical. * WOOL    * Domesticated sheep need to be sheared regularly. As shearing is just a haircut for the sheep, it is not harming the animals or exploiting them. The wool would just go to waste anyway, so making it into yarn or using it for other purposes should be considered ethical.","c_root_id_A":"g220os9","c_root_id_B":"g221739","created_at_utc_A":1597800991,"created_at_utc_B":1597801266,"score_A":2,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"By the definition it's not vegan to do any of those things. However, it is according to the spirit of animal welfare.","human_ref_B":"For the eggs - generally what I hear is that the ethical issues with backyard eggs comes from the sourcing of the chickens. If you buy four hens, four roosters got tossed in the shredder. The constant laying hens have been bred for also puts a lot of stress on their bodies, and they are supposed to be able to eat their own eggs to regain nutrients they lose laying them, but I believe there are supplements for them that can replace this. Ultimately, if someone wants to rescue some chickens and have eggs, I don\u2019t have much issue with it provided they\u2019re well cared for, though if your motivations are solely to obtain eggs I\u2019d have concerns that you really had the chickens\u2019 best interests at heart.  Bees are harmed and killed in the honey industry, and domestic bees are harmful to native bee populations, who are better pollinators for native species. Here is a short, interesting video on the topic.  For wool, sheep raised commercially for it are often subject to poor living conditions and are slaughtered once past peak production. Again, if someone wants to rescue a sheep and use the wool they have to shear, sure, whatever, but how realistic a situation is this for 99.99% of people?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":275.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"ice6jr","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: It's not exploitation to use resources from animals if acquiring those resources doesn't harm the animals. Therefore, eating eggs from a privately owned chicken, eating honey, and using wool should be considered vegan. Full disclosure, I am not vegan, but respect and support vegans. I am not here to bash vegans or veganism, only to discuss what I think should be considered vegan.  As far as I understand it, veganism as a lifestyle (not just as a diet) is about reducing harm to and not participating in the exploitation of animals. Obviously everyone has their own way of living a vegan life and veganism means something different to everyone, but in my opinion, there are certain ethical ways to use resources from animals.  * EGGS    * Hens lay eggs whether they're fertilized or not, so if someone owned a hen or two and ate the eggs that they were going to lay anyway, they are just making sure that those eggs aren't going to waste. This is different from buying eggs from a company that practices factory farming and has chickens for the sole purpose of profit, which would not be ethical. * HONEY    * Similarly, bees make honey whether or not anyone is there to harvest it, and they make more than they could possibly ever use. Taking the excess is, as I understand it, actually beneficial to the bees. In addition, beekeeping can be seen as a form of conservation, as bees are endangered, which I think is ethical. * WOOL    * Domesticated sheep need to be sheared regularly. As shearing is just a haircut for the sheep, it is not harming the animals or exploiting them. The wool would just go to waste anyway, so making it into yarn or using it for other purposes should be considered ethical.","c_root_id_A":"g222088","c_root_id_B":"g220os9","created_at_utc_A":1597801693,"created_at_utc_B":1597800991,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There is some debate about ethical backyard eggs, but I personally don't eat them regardless of where they came from. Honey is meant for bee colonies and is definitely considered an animal product.  I'd advise you to watch this video before claiming that wool is cruelty free...  \\*\\*\\*NSFW\\*\\*\\* https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=2zjf-I4Y2Hw","human_ref_B":"By the definition it's not vegan to do any of those things. However, it is according to the spirit of animal welfare.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":702.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isd0q1i","c_root_id_B":"iscyrcm","created_at_utc_A":1665794966,"created_at_utc_B":1665794019,"score_A":175,"score_B":150,"human_ref_A":"Sending someone back to an earlier point in human history wouldn't just take a time machine but also have to be a space ship since the earth is constantly moving. What if the current spot the earth is in the universe at this time is too much of a hassle for these voyages and time travel technology is only ever able to let people travel to the recent past do to limitations of space travel?","human_ref_B":"> EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years  Simple answer: time-travel solves all paradoxes by creating new timelines with each travel, our is just the first timeline where nobody travelled back from the future yet (or if anyone did the evidence of their travel was well hidden). But if in some point time travel becomes common enough for evidence for it becoming too impossible to be kept hidden that evidence is (was) happening in a different timeline than our own.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":947.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"iscy2fp","c_root_id_B":"isd0q1i","created_at_utc_A":1665793687,"created_at_utc_B":1665794966,"score_A":60,"score_B":175,"human_ref_A":">I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years.  What kind of evidence? You mean someone showing up to Hawking's time travel party? Why would they do that? You're assuming time travel in the future is easy, common, legal or otherwise unregulated.","human_ref_B":"Sending someone back to an earlier point in human history wouldn't just take a time machine but also have to be a space ship since the earth is constantly moving. What if the current spot the earth is in the universe at this time is too much of a hassle for these voyages and time travel technology is only ever able to let people travel to the recent past do to limitations of space travel?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1279.0,"score_ratio":2.9166666667}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"iscz9sv","c_root_id_B":"isd0q1i","created_at_utc_A":1665794263,"created_at_utc_B":1665794966,"score_A":37,"score_B":175,"human_ref_A":"This is only true for a very specific model of no restrictions single timeline time travel.     None of your reasoning would apply if time travel was possible, but only if it resulted in closed loops. Depending on what you're trying to do, the time machine might just not work. If you think about what the time machine would actually be doing, which is contorting space time in weird ways, there may be some ways that spacetime just can't stretch, so only certain journeys are possible.  There are also some models involving branching realities that could work.  But I do agree that the time travel party idea pretty much eliminates certain types of time travel.","human_ref_B":"Sending someone back to an earlier point in human history wouldn't just take a time machine but also have to be a space ship since the earth is constantly moving. What if the current spot the earth is in the universe at this time is too much of a hassle for these voyages and time travel technology is only ever able to let people travel to the recent past do to limitations of space travel?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":703.0,"score_ratio":4.7297297297}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isd0q1i","c_root_id_B":"isczjda","created_at_utc_A":1665794966,"created_at_utc_B":1665794392,"score_A":175,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Sending someone back to an earlier point in human history wouldn't just take a time machine but also have to be a space ship since the earth is constantly moving. What if the current spot the earth is in the universe at this time is too much of a hassle for these voyages and time travel technology is only ever able to let people travel to the recent past do to limitations of space travel?","human_ref_B":"Are we talking back to the future style, then probably.  But why does it have to be that drastic?  Silly example, we are all time travelers, we just move at 1 sec\/sec. (since otherwise we'd be statues).   Slightly less silly, but still silly example, time moves differently in response to high gravity. If you were to fall into a black hole, it would take millions of years, sorta. From your perspective time would proceed normal, but from anyone else's perspective you'd be all but frozen in time. Issue is, even if you count that as time travel, you can't get out (it's a black hole).   Somewhat relevant example, GPS. In order to function, GPS needs to know the exact time. And while the earth is no black hole, it still has gravity. As such, the earth itself does slightly warp time, just not enough for people to subjectively notice, but enough that GPS satellites have to correct for it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":574.0,"score_ratio":14.5833333333}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"iscyrcm","c_root_id_B":"iscy2fp","created_at_utc_A":1665794019,"created_at_utc_B":1665793687,"score_A":150,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":"> EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years  Simple answer: time-travel solves all paradoxes by creating new timelines with each travel, our is just the first timeline where nobody travelled back from the future yet (or if anyone did the evidence of their travel was well hidden). But if in some point time travel becomes common enough for evidence for it becoming too impossible to be kept hidden that evidence is (was) happening in a different timeline than our own.","human_ref_B":">I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years.  What kind of evidence? You mean someone showing up to Hawking's time travel party? Why would they do that? You're assuming time travel in the future is easy, common, legal or otherwise unregulated.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":332.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdiz8x","c_root_id_B":"iscy2fp","created_at_utc_A":1665804213,"created_at_utc_B":1665793687,"score_A":116,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":"If someone wrote a CMV in the 1800s saying space travel would never happen, no one would really know how to convince that person otherwise, because the science and tech weren\u2019t there yet. Never say never. Humans don\u2019t understand shit about fuck.  PS you never know if time travelers stopped other time travelers from going to the party.","human_ref_B":">I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years.  What kind of evidence? You mean someone showing up to Hawking's time travel party? Why would they do that? You're assuming time travel in the future is easy, common, legal or otherwise unregulated.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10526.0,"score_ratio":1.9333333333}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdiz8x","c_root_id_B":"iscz9sv","created_at_utc_A":1665804213,"created_at_utc_B":1665794263,"score_A":116,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"If someone wrote a CMV in the 1800s saying space travel would never happen, no one would really know how to convince that person otherwise, because the science and tech weren\u2019t there yet. Never say never. Humans don\u2019t understand shit about fuck.  PS you never know if time travelers stopped other time travelers from going to the party.","human_ref_B":"This is only true for a very specific model of no restrictions single timeline time travel.     None of your reasoning would apply if time travel was possible, but only if it resulted in closed loops. Depending on what you're trying to do, the time machine might just not work. If you think about what the time machine would actually be doing, which is contorting space time in weird ways, there may be some ways that spacetime just can't stretch, so only certain journeys are possible.  There are also some models involving branching realities that could work.  But I do agree that the time travel party idea pretty much eliminates certain types of time travel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9950.0,"score_ratio":3.1351351351}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdee1j","c_root_id_B":"isdiz8x","created_at_utc_A":1665801735,"created_at_utc_B":1665804213,"score_A":26,"score_B":116,"human_ref_A":"Maybe there are laws like not travelling before you were born, or before a certain date. Maybe going to our time means they can't go back to theirs (no power sources\/combustibles for the machine).   Maybe you can only go forward for whatever reason.   Maybe there were time travelers who were discreet, or maybe there were time travelers who steered civilization (big personalities in history).  Maybe time travel takes a toll on bodies so it's only done in the most urgent of cases.  Maybe they live amongst us...  If I had the capabilities to time-travel, I probably wouldn't advertise it or go to a party.  The first argument you have is \"nobody showed up to the party\". Well why would they. Are they gonna use time travel to get a slice of pizza? Soda? When you've conquered time, you can show up to any party without giving yourself away. You can have everything. Plus, what if time travel gets discovered 10 million years from now? How would they know about the party? Would you go to a neanderthal party if you could? Sitting in a cave eating roots?  Second argument is \"there are no time traveling tourists\". I don't think there would be if travels are strictly regulated. It's like saying \"I don't believe there are planes, none landed in my yard ever\". That's cause they are strictly regulated and extremely expensive and you can't just str8 up buy one.  I'm not saying time travel exists. I'm saying maybe. I'm saying we cannot be sure. If it was theoretically possible, I think chances are someday it might be practically possible. And since there's no actual argument against it, I don't see why we should think it's impossible.  This is not a conspiracy, it's just saying \"idk man, might be possible\"","human_ref_B":"If someone wrote a CMV in the 1800s saying space travel would never happen, no one would really know how to convince that person otherwise, because the science and tech weren\u2019t there yet. Never say never. Humans don\u2019t understand shit about fuck.  PS you never know if time travelers stopped other time travelers from going to the party.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2478.0,"score_ratio":4.4615384615}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdiz8x","c_root_id_B":"isd1bsu","created_at_utc_A":1665804213,"created_at_utc_B":1665795256,"score_A":116,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"If someone wrote a CMV in the 1800s saying space travel would never happen, no one would really know how to convince that person otherwise, because the science and tech weren\u2019t there yet. Never say never. Humans don\u2019t understand shit about fuck.  PS you never know if time travelers stopped other time travelers from going to the party.","human_ref_B":">If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will.  It disproves one scenario - where time travel is available through the same timeline, accessible and completely legal. But at the same time take away any of those qualifiers and this party means nothing.  If time travel is available only trough branching timelines, then no one shown just because we live in a timeline where no one shown. Maybe there was one (or several) time-travellers that decided to go somewhere else.  If time travel is not very accessible, then no one would spend resources to time-travel to a party that exist only to prove that time-travel is real.  If time travel is illegal then no one will show to a party which will mean that they will be known as time-travellers widely.  >Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.  Problem is that you cannot prove negative just by singular cases - you can either show it as impossible due to some proven laws of nature or accept it as \"theoretically possible but largely meaningless until proven\" so in the same category as Russell's Teapot.  > literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years.  Not necessarily. If the Many-Worlds Interpretation is true, backwards time-travel may be possible but close to impossible to be done across the same timeline.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8957.0,"score_ratio":5.0434782609}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdiz8x","c_root_id_B":"isdd8jm","created_at_utc_A":1665804213,"created_at_utc_B":1665801146,"score_A":116,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"If someone wrote a CMV in the 1800s saying space travel would never happen, no one would really know how to convince that person otherwise, because the science and tech weren\u2019t there yet. Never say never. Humans don\u2019t understand shit about fuck.  PS you never know if time travelers stopped other time travelers from going to the party.","human_ref_B":"Maybe no one wanted to party with Hawkings?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3067.0,"score_ratio":6.1052631579}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdiz8x","c_root_id_B":"isczjda","created_at_utc_A":1665804213,"created_at_utc_B":1665794392,"score_A":116,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"If someone wrote a CMV in the 1800s saying space travel would never happen, no one would really know how to convince that person otherwise, because the science and tech weren\u2019t there yet. Never say never. Humans don\u2019t understand shit about fuck.  PS you never know if time travelers stopped other time travelers from going to the party.","human_ref_B":"Are we talking back to the future style, then probably.  But why does it have to be that drastic?  Silly example, we are all time travelers, we just move at 1 sec\/sec. (since otherwise we'd be statues).   Slightly less silly, but still silly example, time moves differently in response to high gravity. If you were to fall into a black hole, it would take millions of years, sorta. From your perspective time would proceed normal, but from anyone else's perspective you'd be all but frozen in time. Issue is, even if you count that as time travel, you can't get out (it's a black hole).   Somewhat relevant example, GPS. In order to function, GPS needs to know the exact time. And while the earth is no black hole, it still has gravity. As such, the earth itself does slightly warp time, just not enough for people to subjectively notice, but enough that GPS satellites have to correct for it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9821.0,"score_ratio":9.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdiz8x","c_root_id_B":"isdic2x","created_at_utc_A":1665804213,"created_at_utc_B":1665803851,"score_A":116,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"If someone wrote a CMV in the 1800s saying space travel would never happen, no one would really know how to convince that person otherwise, because the science and tech weren\u2019t there yet. Never say never. Humans don\u2019t understand shit about fuck.  PS you never know if time travelers stopped other time travelers from going to the party.","human_ref_B":"I'm gonna not look at the physics for a second because everyone else is doing that, I'm having trouble understanding how you take Hawking's party as definitive proof that time travel will never happen.  Let's believe in a universe where it IS real, just because someone says: Come around at this time, day, month, year for my party! Who says someone MUST show up? I can drive to a party right now if I wanted to, I don't want to, let alone hop in my TIME MACHINE, use ridiculous amounts of energy to go to a lame ass party that was held 900 years ago. Or what if traveling back in time is not allowed? Legally, or physically? Or what if traveling back would close you into a loop, what if it's just not precise enough? What if in the future earth is now in a different gravitational field that changes the passes of time, or what if humans aren't in earth at all? what if A, B, C, D, Etc. dude?   Like I'm not gonna sit here and defend time travel as a reasonable expectation, but deciding it CAN'T happen because of a party? Man... At least hear the physics out and decide based on that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":362.0,"score_ratio":9.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isd7ssv","c_root_id_B":"isdiz8x","created_at_utc_A":1665798421,"created_at_utc_B":1665804213,"score_A":7,"score_B":116,"human_ref_A":"This only proves that a particular model of time travel will never be invented. That model is what I would categorize as \u2018Tenet-style\u2019 time travel - \u201cwhatever happened, happens\u201d. If someone from the future came to the past, it would have already happened, and we would already see evidence of it.  But the lack of evidence for this doesn\u2019t offer any proof that alternative models of time travel will become possible. There is no evidence that \u2018Back to the Future\u2019 time travel or \u2018Avengers Endgame\u2019 time travel can\u2019t be invented in the future, as they both assume that alternate versions of the future are created after a visit to the past.","human_ref_B":"If someone wrote a CMV in the 1800s saying space travel would never happen, no one would really know how to convince that person otherwise, because the science and tech weren\u2019t there yet. Never say never. Humans don\u2019t understand shit about fuck.  PS you never know if time travelers stopped other time travelers from going to the party.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5792.0,"score_ratio":16.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdi8do","c_root_id_B":"isdiz8x","created_at_utc_A":1665803793,"created_at_utc_B":1665804213,"score_A":8,"score_B":116,"human_ref_A":"A workable hypothesis for this observation is that time machines are possible, but require a type of infrastructure to let them be usable\u2014\u201clanding pads\u201d of some sort. Under that hypothesis, we wouldn\u2019t see any time machines until we independently develop our first one, and then we\u2019d only be able to jump to other times and locations that have one of these time stations already built. Since the technology is so far beyond us at this point, it\u2019s just as reasonable to assume a machine that requires a framework as one that can travel freely.","human_ref_B":"If someone wrote a CMV in the 1800s saying space travel would never happen, no one would really know how to convince that person otherwise, because the science and tech weren\u2019t there yet. Never say never. Humans don\u2019t understand shit about fuck.  PS you never know if time travelers stopped other time travelers from going to the party.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":420.0,"score_ratio":14.5}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdee1j","c_root_id_B":"isd1bsu","created_at_utc_A":1665801735,"created_at_utc_B":1665795256,"score_A":26,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Maybe there are laws like not travelling before you were born, or before a certain date. Maybe going to our time means they can't go back to theirs (no power sources\/combustibles for the machine).   Maybe you can only go forward for whatever reason.   Maybe there were time travelers who were discreet, or maybe there were time travelers who steered civilization (big personalities in history).  Maybe time travel takes a toll on bodies so it's only done in the most urgent of cases.  Maybe they live amongst us...  If I had the capabilities to time-travel, I probably wouldn't advertise it or go to a party.  The first argument you have is \"nobody showed up to the party\". Well why would they. Are they gonna use time travel to get a slice of pizza? Soda? When you've conquered time, you can show up to any party without giving yourself away. You can have everything. Plus, what if time travel gets discovered 10 million years from now? How would they know about the party? Would you go to a neanderthal party if you could? Sitting in a cave eating roots?  Second argument is \"there are no time traveling tourists\". I don't think there would be if travels are strictly regulated. It's like saying \"I don't believe there are planes, none landed in my yard ever\". That's cause they are strictly regulated and extremely expensive and you can't just str8 up buy one.  I'm not saying time travel exists. I'm saying maybe. I'm saying we cannot be sure. If it was theoretically possible, I think chances are someday it might be practically possible. And since there's no actual argument against it, I don't see why we should think it's impossible.  This is not a conspiracy, it's just saying \"idk man, might be possible\"","human_ref_B":">If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will.  It disproves one scenario - where time travel is available through the same timeline, accessible and completely legal. But at the same time take away any of those qualifiers and this party means nothing.  If time travel is available only trough branching timelines, then no one shown just because we live in a timeline where no one shown. Maybe there was one (or several) time-travellers that decided to go somewhere else.  If time travel is not very accessible, then no one would spend resources to time-travel to a party that exist only to prove that time-travel is real.  If time travel is illegal then no one will show to a party which will mean that they will be known as time-travellers widely.  >Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.  Problem is that you cannot prove negative just by singular cases - you can either show it as impossible due to some proven laws of nature or accept it as \"theoretically possible but largely meaningless until proven\" so in the same category as Russell's Teapot.  > literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years.  Not necessarily. If the Many-Worlds Interpretation is true, backwards time-travel may be possible but close to impossible to be done across the same timeline.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6479.0,"score_ratio":1.1304347826}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdee1j","c_root_id_B":"isdd8jm","created_at_utc_A":1665801735,"created_at_utc_B":1665801146,"score_A":26,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Maybe there are laws like not travelling before you were born, or before a certain date. Maybe going to our time means they can't go back to theirs (no power sources\/combustibles for the machine).   Maybe you can only go forward for whatever reason.   Maybe there were time travelers who were discreet, or maybe there were time travelers who steered civilization (big personalities in history).  Maybe time travel takes a toll on bodies so it's only done in the most urgent of cases.  Maybe they live amongst us...  If I had the capabilities to time-travel, I probably wouldn't advertise it or go to a party.  The first argument you have is \"nobody showed up to the party\". Well why would they. Are they gonna use time travel to get a slice of pizza? Soda? When you've conquered time, you can show up to any party without giving yourself away. You can have everything. Plus, what if time travel gets discovered 10 million years from now? How would they know about the party? Would you go to a neanderthal party if you could? Sitting in a cave eating roots?  Second argument is \"there are no time traveling tourists\". I don't think there would be if travels are strictly regulated. It's like saying \"I don't believe there are planes, none landed in my yard ever\". That's cause they are strictly regulated and extremely expensive and you can't just str8 up buy one.  I'm not saying time travel exists. I'm saying maybe. I'm saying we cannot be sure. If it was theoretically possible, I think chances are someday it might be practically possible. And since there's no actual argument against it, I don't see why we should think it's impossible.  This is not a conspiracy, it's just saying \"idk man, might be possible\"","human_ref_B":"Maybe no one wanted to party with Hawkings?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":589.0,"score_ratio":1.3684210526}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isczjda","c_root_id_B":"isdee1j","created_at_utc_A":1665794392,"created_at_utc_B":1665801735,"score_A":12,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"Are we talking back to the future style, then probably.  But why does it have to be that drastic?  Silly example, we are all time travelers, we just move at 1 sec\/sec. (since otherwise we'd be statues).   Slightly less silly, but still silly example, time moves differently in response to high gravity. If you were to fall into a black hole, it would take millions of years, sorta. From your perspective time would proceed normal, but from anyone else's perspective you'd be all but frozen in time. Issue is, even if you count that as time travel, you can't get out (it's a black hole).   Somewhat relevant example, GPS. In order to function, GPS needs to know the exact time. And while the earth is no black hole, it still has gravity. As such, the earth itself does slightly warp time, just not enough for people to subjectively notice, but enough that GPS satellites have to correct for it.","human_ref_B":"Maybe there are laws like not travelling before you were born, or before a certain date. Maybe going to our time means they can't go back to theirs (no power sources\/combustibles for the machine).   Maybe you can only go forward for whatever reason.   Maybe there were time travelers who were discreet, or maybe there were time travelers who steered civilization (big personalities in history).  Maybe time travel takes a toll on bodies so it's only done in the most urgent of cases.  Maybe they live amongst us...  If I had the capabilities to time-travel, I probably wouldn't advertise it or go to a party.  The first argument you have is \"nobody showed up to the party\". Well why would they. Are they gonna use time travel to get a slice of pizza? Soda? When you've conquered time, you can show up to any party without giving yourself away. You can have everything. Plus, what if time travel gets discovered 10 million years from now? How would they know about the party? Would you go to a neanderthal party if you could? Sitting in a cave eating roots?  Second argument is \"there are no time traveling tourists\". I don't think there would be if travels are strictly regulated. It's like saying \"I don't believe there are planes, none landed in my yard ever\". That's cause they are strictly regulated and extremely expensive and you can't just str8 up buy one.  I'm not saying time travel exists. I'm saying maybe. I'm saying we cannot be sure. If it was theoretically possible, I think chances are someday it might be practically possible. And since there's no actual argument against it, I don't see why we should think it's impossible.  This is not a conspiracy, it's just saying \"idk man, might be possible\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7343.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isd7ssv","c_root_id_B":"isdee1j","created_at_utc_A":1665798421,"created_at_utc_B":1665801735,"score_A":7,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"This only proves that a particular model of time travel will never be invented. That model is what I would categorize as \u2018Tenet-style\u2019 time travel - \u201cwhatever happened, happens\u201d. If someone from the future came to the past, it would have already happened, and we would already see evidence of it.  But the lack of evidence for this doesn\u2019t offer any proof that alternative models of time travel will become possible. There is no evidence that \u2018Back to the Future\u2019 time travel or \u2018Avengers Endgame\u2019 time travel can\u2019t be invented in the future, as they both assume that alternate versions of the future are created after a visit to the past.","human_ref_B":"Maybe there are laws like not travelling before you were born, or before a certain date. Maybe going to our time means they can't go back to theirs (no power sources\/combustibles for the machine).   Maybe you can only go forward for whatever reason.   Maybe there were time travelers who were discreet, or maybe there were time travelers who steered civilization (big personalities in history).  Maybe time travel takes a toll on bodies so it's only done in the most urgent of cases.  Maybe they live amongst us...  If I had the capabilities to time-travel, I probably wouldn't advertise it or go to a party.  The first argument you have is \"nobody showed up to the party\". Well why would they. Are they gonna use time travel to get a slice of pizza? Soda? When you've conquered time, you can show up to any party without giving yourself away. You can have everything. Plus, what if time travel gets discovered 10 million years from now? How would they know about the party? Would you go to a neanderthal party if you could? Sitting in a cave eating roots?  Second argument is \"there are no time traveling tourists\". I don't think there would be if travels are strictly regulated. It's like saying \"I don't believe there are planes, none landed in my yard ever\". That's cause they are strictly regulated and extremely expensive and you can't just str8 up buy one.  I'm not saying time travel exists. I'm saying maybe. I'm saying we cannot be sure. If it was theoretically possible, I think chances are someday it might be practically possible. And since there's no actual argument against it, I don't see why we should think it's impossible.  This is not a conspiracy, it's just saying \"idk man, might be possible\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3314.0,"score_ratio":3.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isczjda","c_root_id_B":"isd1bsu","created_at_utc_A":1665794392,"created_at_utc_B":1665795256,"score_A":12,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Are we talking back to the future style, then probably.  But why does it have to be that drastic?  Silly example, we are all time travelers, we just move at 1 sec\/sec. (since otherwise we'd be statues).   Slightly less silly, but still silly example, time moves differently in response to high gravity. If you were to fall into a black hole, it would take millions of years, sorta. From your perspective time would proceed normal, but from anyone else's perspective you'd be all but frozen in time. Issue is, even if you count that as time travel, you can't get out (it's a black hole).   Somewhat relevant example, GPS. In order to function, GPS needs to know the exact time. And while the earth is no black hole, it still has gravity. As such, the earth itself does slightly warp time, just not enough for people to subjectively notice, but enough that GPS satellites have to correct for it.","human_ref_B":">If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will.  It disproves one scenario - where time travel is available through the same timeline, accessible and completely legal. But at the same time take away any of those qualifiers and this party means nothing.  If time travel is available only trough branching timelines, then no one shown just because we live in a timeline where no one shown. Maybe there was one (or several) time-travellers that decided to go somewhere else.  If time travel is not very accessible, then no one would spend resources to time-travel to a party that exist only to prove that time-travel is real.  If time travel is illegal then no one will show to a party which will mean that they will be known as time-travellers widely.  >Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.  Problem is that you cannot prove negative just by singular cases - you can either show it as impossible due to some proven laws of nature or accept it as \"theoretically possible but largely meaningless until proven\" so in the same category as Russell's Teapot.  > literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years.  Not necessarily. If the Many-Worlds Interpretation is true, backwards time-travel may be possible but close to impossible to be done across the same timeline.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":864.0,"score_ratio":1.9166666667}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdd8jm","c_root_id_B":"isczjda","created_at_utc_A":1665801146,"created_at_utc_B":1665794392,"score_A":19,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Maybe no one wanted to party with Hawkings?","human_ref_B":"Are we talking back to the future style, then probably.  But why does it have to be that drastic?  Silly example, we are all time travelers, we just move at 1 sec\/sec. (since otherwise we'd be statues).   Slightly less silly, but still silly example, time moves differently in response to high gravity. If you were to fall into a black hole, it would take millions of years, sorta. From your perspective time would proceed normal, but from anyone else's perspective you'd be all but frozen in time. Issue is, even if you count that as time travel, you can't get out (it's a black hole).   Somewhat relevant example, GPS. In order to function, GPS needs to know the exact time. And while the earth is no black hole, it still has gravity. As such, the earth itself does slightly warp time, just not enough for people to subjectively notice, but enough that GPS satellites have to correct for it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6754.0,"score_ratio":1.5833333333}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdd8jm","c_root_id_B":"isd7ssv","created_at_utc_A":1665801146,"created_at_utc_B":1665798421,"score_A":19,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Maybe no one wanted to party with Hawkings?","human_ref_B":"This only proves that a particular model of time travel will never be invented. That model is what I would categorize as \u2018Tenet-style\u2019 time travel - \u201cwhatever happened, happens\u201d. If someone from the future came to the past, it would have already happened, and we would already see evidence of it.  But the lack of evidence for this doesn\u2019t offer any proof that alternative models of time travel will become possible. There is no evidence that \u2018Back to the Future\u2019 time travel or \u2018Avengers Endgame\u2019 time travel can\u2019t be invented in the future, as they both assume that alternate versions of the future are created after a visit to the past.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2725.0,"score_ratio":2.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isczjda","c_root_id_B":"isdos3t","created_at_utc_A":1665794392,"created_at_utc_B":1665807596,"score_A":12,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Are we talking back to the future style, then probably.  But why does it have to be that drastic?  Silly example, we are all time travelers, we just move at 1 sec\/sec. (since otherwise we'd be statues).   Slightly less silly, but still silly example, time moves differently in response to high gravity. If you were to fall into a black hole, it would take millions of years, sorta. From your perspective time would proceed normal, but from anyone else's perspective you'd be all but frozen in time. Issue is, even if you count that as time travel, you can't get out (it's a black hole).   Somewhat relevant example, GPS. In order to function, GPS needs to know the exact time. And while the earth is no black hole, it still has gravity. As such, the earth itself does slightly warp time, just not enough for people to subjectively notice, but enough that GPS satellites have to correct for it.","human_ref_B":"What if human history ends up being billions of years of duration and no one gave a shit about the first million years?  Or what if humans aren\u2019t the ones to invent it.   I always feel like one of the biggest issues is that humans think they\u2019re so special as to be the ones to do everything. Or that our lifetime is special enough to experience things.   Maybe tourists just think we\u2019re boring. I could think of several parks in my area that tourists don\u2019t visit. Doesn\u2019t mean tourists don\u2019t come to my country though. They just don\u2019t care about the boring parts.   And if you did have some radical lone wolf checking out boring stuff, maybe they fly under the radar.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13204.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdos3t","c_root_id_B":"isdic2x","created_at_utc_A":1665807596,"created_at_utc_B":1665803851,"score_A":18,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"What if human history ends up being billions of years of duration and no one gave a shit about the first million years?  Or what if humans aren\u2019t the ones to invent it.   I always feel like one of the biggest issues is that humans think they\u2019re so special as to be the ones to do everything. Or that our lifetime is special enough to experience things.   Maybe tourists just think we\u2019re boring. I could think of several parks in my area that tourists don\u2019t visit. Doesn\u2019t mean tourists don\u2019t come to my country though. They just don\u2019t care about the boring parts.   And if you did have some radical lone wolf checking out boring stuff, maybe they fly under the radar.","human_ref_B":"I'm gonna not look at the physics for a second because everyone else is doing that, I'm having trouble understanding how you take Hawking's party as definitive proof that time travel will never happen.  Let's believe in a universe where it IS real, just because someone says: Come around at this time, day, month, year for my party! Who says someone MUST show up? I can drive to a party right now if I wanted to, I don't want to, let alone hop in my TIME MACHINE, use ridiculous amounts of energy to go to a lame ass party that was held 900 years ago. Or what if traveling back in time is not allowed? Legally, or physically? Or what if traveling back would close you into a loop, what if it's just not precise enough? What if in the future earth is now in a different gravitational field that changes the passes of time, or what if humans aren't in earth at all? what if A, B, C, D, Etc. dude?   Like I'm not gonna sit here and defend time travel as a reasonable expectation, but deciding it CAN'T happen because of a party? Man... At least hear the physics out and decide based on that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3745.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isd7ssv","c_root_id_B":"isdos3t","created_at_utc_A":1665798421,"created_at_utc_B":1665807596,"score_A":7,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"This only proves that a particular model of time travel will never be invented. That model is what I would categorize as \u2018Tenet-style\u2019 time travel - \u201cwhatever happened, happens\u201d. If someone from the future came to the past, it would have already happened, and we would already see evidence of it.  But the lack of evidence for this doesn\u2019t offer any proof that alternative models of time travel will become possible. There is no evidence that \u2018Back to the Future\u2019 time travel or \u2018Avengers Endgame\u2019 time travel can\u2019t be invented in the future, as they both assume that alternate versions of the future are created after a visit to the past.","human_ref_B":"What if human history ends up being billions of years of duration and no one gave a shit about the first million years?  Or what if humans aren\u2019t the ones to invent it.   I always feel like one of the biggest issues is that humans think they\u2019re so special as to be the ones to do everything. Or that our lifetime is special enough to experience things.   Maybe tourists just think we\u2019re boring. I could think of several parks in my area that tourists don\u2019t visit. Doesn\u2019t mean tourists don\u2019t come to my country though. They just don\u2019t care about the boring parts.   And if you did have some radical lone wolf checking out boring stuff, maybe they fly under the radar.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9175.0,"score_ratio":2.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdi8do","c_root_id_B":"isdos3t","created_at_utc_A":1665803793,"created_at_utc_B":1665807596,"score_A":8,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"A workable hypothesis for this observation is that time machines are possible, but require a type of infrastructure to let them be usable\u2014\u201clanding pads\u201d of some sort. Under that hypothesis, we wouldn\u2019t see any time machines until we independently develop our first one, and then we\u2019d only be able to jump to other times and locations that have one of these time stations already built. Since the technology is so far beyond us at this point, it\u2019s just as reasonable to assume a machine that requires a framework as one that can travel freely.","human_ref_B":"What if human history ends up being billions of years of duration and no one gave a shit about the first million years?  Or what if humans aren\u2019t the ones to invent it.   I always feel like one of the biggest issues is that humans think they\u2019re so special as to be the ones to do everything. Or that our lifetime is special enough to experience things.   Maybe tourists just think we\u2019re boring. I could think of several parks in my area that tourists don\u2019t visit. Doesn\u2019t mean tourists don\u2019t come to my country though. They just don\u2019t care about the boring parts.   And if you did have some radical lone wolf checking out boring stuff, maybe they fly under the radar.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3803.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isd7ssv","c_root_id_B":"isdic2x","created_at_utc_A":1665798421,"created_at_utc_B":1665803851,"score_A":7,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"This only proves that a particular model of time travel will never be invented. That model is what I would categorize as \u2018Tenet-style\u2019 time travel - \u201cwhatever happened, happens\u201d. If someone from the future came to the past, it would have already happened, and we would already see evidence of it.  But the lack of evidence for this doesn\u2019t offer any proof that alternative models of time travel will become possible. There is no evidence that \u2018Back to the Future\u2019 time travel or \u2018Avengers Endgame\u2019 time travel can\u2019t be invented in the future, as they both assume that alternate versions of the future are created after a visit to the past.","human_ref_B":"I'm gonna not look at the physics for a second because everyone else is doing that, I'm having trouble understanding how you take Hawking's party as definitive proof that time travel will never happen.  Let's believe in a universe where it IS real, just because someone says: Come around at this time, day, month, year for my party! Who says someone MUST show up? I can drive to a party right now if I wanted to, I don't want to, let alone hop in my TIME MACHINE, use ridiculous amounts of energy to go to a lame ass party that was held 900 years ago. Or what if traveling back in time is not allowed? Legally, or physically? Or what if traveling back would close you into a loop, what if it's just not precise enough? What if in the future earth is now in a different gravitational field that changes the passes of time, or what if humans aren't in earth at all? what if A, B, C, D, Etc. dude?   Like I'm not gonna sit here and defend time travel as a reasonable expectation, but deciding it CAN'T happen because of a party? Man... At least hear the physics out and decide based on that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5430.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdic2x","c_root_id_B":"isdi8do","created_at_utc_A":1665803851,"created_at_utc_B":1665803793,"score_A":12,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I'm gonna not look at the physics for a second because everyone else is doing that, I'm having trouble understanding how you take Hawking's party as definitive proof that time travel will never happen.  Let's believe in a universe where it IS real, just because someone says: Come around at this time, day, month, year for my party! Who says someone MUST show up? I can drive to a party right now if I wanted to, I don't want to, let alone hop in my TIME MACHINE, use ridiculous amounts of energy to go to a lame ass party that was held 900 years ago. Or what if traveling back in time is not allowed? Legally, or physically? Or what if traveling back would close you into a loop, what if it's just not precise enough? What if in the future earth is now in a different gravitational field that changes the passes of time, or what if humans aren't in earth at all? what if A, B, C, D, Etc. dude?   Like I'm not gonna sit here and defend time travel as a reasonable expectation, but deciding it CAN'T happen because of a party? Man... At least hear the physics out and decide based on that.","human_ref_B":"A workable hypothesis for this observation is that time machines are possible, but require a type of infrastructure to let them be usable\u2014\u201clanding pads\u201d of some sort. Under that hypothesis, we wouldn\u2019t see any time machines until we independently develop our first one, and then we\u2019d only be able to jump to other times and locations that have one of these time stations already built. Since the technology is so far beyond us at this point, it\u2019s just as reasonable to assume a machine that requires a framework as one that can travel freely.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":58.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"y4958a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Time travel is never going to happen If Hawking throwing a party for time travelers and no one showing up doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Plus as he also stated, there's no evidence of hoards of time traveling tourists (which undoubtedly, if time travel ever were possible, there absolutely would be).   I know the theories by Einstein and others that seem to prove it could be possible, but lots of things could theoretically occur, that doesn't mean there is any likelihood that they ever will. When it comes to time travel (at the very least traveling to the past), I think the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of years without a single substantiated case of anyone ever having done it seems proof enough to me.   I don't even mean someone would have invented it by now, I literally mean if anyone solved the space-time equation EVER there would be evidence of it at some point in the last couple thousand years. But there's not. So I really don't think it's ever going to happen.","c_root_id_A":"isdi8do","c_root_id_B":"isd7ssv","created_at_utc_A":1665803793,"created_at_utc_B":1665798421,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"A workable hypothesis for this observation is that time machines are possible, but require a type of infrastructure to let them be usable\u2014\u201clanding pads\u201d of some sort. Under that hypothesis, we wouldn\u2019t see any time machines until we independently develop our first one, and then we\u2019d only be able to jump to other times and locations that have one of these time stations already built. Since the technology is so far beyond us at this point, it\u2019s just as reasonable to assume a machine that requires a framework as one that can travel freely.","human_ref_B":"This only proves that a particular model of time travel will never be invented. That model is what I would categorize as \u2018Tenet-style\u2019 time travel - \u201cwhatever happened, happens\u201d. If someone from the future came to the past, it would have already happened, and we would already see evidence of it.  But the lack of evidence for this doesn\u2019t offer any proof that alternative models of time travel will become possible. There is no evidence that \u2018Back to the Future\u2019 time travel or \u2018Avengers Endgame\u2019 time travel can\u2019t be invented in the future, as they both assume that alternate versions of the future are created after a visit to the past.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5372.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdlmxp","c_root_id_B":"ivdp9i7","created_at_utc_A":1667795393,"created_at_utc_B":1667797474,"score_A":16,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"One of the largest mediums of communication in the world was just purchased by an increasingly unhinged individual with many possible ulterior motives.","human_ref_B":"I think it\u2019s funny that you want people to just stop using Twitter if it\u2019s becoming filled with posts they don\u2019t like, but you can\u2019t just stop using Reddit when it\u2019s filled with posts you don\u2019t like.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2081.0,"score_ratio":2.0625}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdk9rt","c_root_id_B":"ivdp9i7","created_at_utc_A":1667794635,"created_at_utc_B":1667797474,"score_A":18,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"People are legitimacy concerned about providing a platform for open racism, antisemitism, political propaganda and misinformation, and various other types of hate speech. Spreading hate speech and propaganda is bad, and people who are focused on creating a better, more informed populace should absolutely share their ideas.","human_ref_B":"I think it\u2019s funny that you want people to just stop using Twitter if it\u2019s becoming filled with posts they don\u2019t like, but you can\u2019t just stop using Reddit when it\u2019s filled with posts you don\u2019t like.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2839.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdp9i7","c_root_id_B":"ivdi8tq","created_at_utc_A":1667797474,"created_at_utc_B":1667793562,"score_A":33,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I think it\u2019s funny that you want people to just stop using Twitter if it\u2019s becoming filled with posts they don\u2019t like, but you can\u2019t just stop using Reddit when it\u2019s filled with posts you don\u2019t like.","human_ref_B":"I have every right to freak out about Twitter, Elon just banned Carrot Top for impersonating Elon.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3912.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdp9i7","c_root_id_B":"ivdigk5","created_at_utc_A":1667797474,"created_at_utc_B":1667793679,"score_A":33,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think it\u2019s funny that you want people to just stop using Twitter if it\u2019s becoming filled with posts they don\u2019t like, but you can\u2019t just stop using Reddit when it\u2019s filled with posts you don\u2019t like.","human_ref_B":"People \"need\" to be accommodating for your Reddit experience?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3795.0,"score_ratio":11.0}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdp9i7","c_root_id_B":"ivdlv3z","created_at_utc_A":1667797474,"created_at_utc_B":1667795523,"score_A":33,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think it\u2019s funny that you want people to just stop using Twitter if it\u2019s becoming filled with posts they don\u2019t like, but you can\u2019t just stop using Reddit when it\u2019s filled with posts you don\u2019t like.","human_ref_B":"When you let the crazy conservatives back, the simpletons that are easily brainwashed get weaponized. That\u2019s how we got January 6th.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1951.0,"score_ratio":11.0}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdpzhh","c_root_id_B":"ivdlmxp","created_at_utc_A":1667797923,"created_at_utc_B":1667795393,"score_A":21,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"So hate speech doesn\u2019t ruin your Twitter experience, but talk of Twitter ruins your Reddit experience?","human_ref_B":"One of the largest mediums of communication in the world was just purchased by an increasingly unhinged individual with many possible ulterior motives.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2530.0,"score_ratio":1.3125}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdk9rt","c_root_id_B":"ivdpzhh","created_at_utc_A":1667794635,"created_at_utc_B":1667797923,"score_A":18,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"People are legitimacy concerned about providing a platform for open racism, antisemitism, political propaganda and misinformation, and various other types of hate speech. Spreading hate speech and propaganda is bad, and people who are focused on creating a better, more informed populace should absolutely share their ideas.","human_ref_B":"So hate speech doesn\u2019t ruin your Twitter experience, but talk of Twitter ruins your Reddit experience?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3288.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdpzhh","c_root_id_B":"ivdi8tq","created_at_utc_A":1667797923,"created_at_utc_B":1667793562,"score_A":21,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"So hate speech doesn\u2019t ruin your Twitter experience, but talk of Twitter ruins your Reddit experience?","human_ref_B":"I have every right to freak out about Twitter, Elon just banned Carrot Top for impersonating Elon.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4361.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdpzhh","c_root_id_B":"ivdigk5","created_at_utc_A":1667797923,"created_at_utc_B":1667793679,"score_A":21,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So hate speech doesn\u2019t ruin your Twitter experience, but talk of Twitter ruins your Reddit experience?","human_ref_B":"People \"need\" to be accommodating for your Reddit experience?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4244.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdpzhh","c_root_id_B":"ivdlv3z","created_at_utc_A":1667797923,"created_at_utc_B":1667795523,"score_A":21,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So hate speech doesn\u2019t ruin your Twitter experience, but talk of Twitter ruins your Reddit experience?","human_ref_B":"When you let the crazy conservatives back, the simpletons that are easily brainwashed get weaponized. That\u2019s how we got January 6th.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2400.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdi8tq","c_root_id_B":"ivdlmxp","created_at_utc_A":1667793562,"created_at_utc_B":1667795393,"score_A":9,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I have every right to freak out about Twitter, Elon just banned Carrot Top for impersonating Elon.","human_ref_B":"One of the largest mediums of communication in the world was just purchased by an increasingly unhinged individual with many possible ulterior motives.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1831.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdigk5","c_root_id_B":"ivdlmxp","created_at_utc_A":1667793679,"created_at_utc_B":1667795393,"score_A":3,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"People \"need\" to be accommodating for your Reddit experience?","human_ref_B":"One of the largest mediums of communication in the world was just purchased by an increasingly unhinged individual with many possible ulterior motives.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1714.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdk9rt","c_root_id_B":"ivdi8tq","created_at_utc_A":1667794635,"created_at_utc_B":1667793562,"score_A":18,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"People are legitimacy concerned about providing a platform for open racism, antisemitism, political propaganda and misinformation, and various other types of hate speech. Spreading hate speech and propaganda is bad, and people who are focused on creating a better, more informed populace should absolutely share their ideas.","human_ref_B":"I have every right to freak out about Twitter, Elon just banned Carrot Top for impersonating Elon.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1073.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdk9rt","c_root_id_B":"ivdigk5","created_at_utc_A":1667794635,"created_at_utc_B":1667793679,"score_A":18,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"People are legitimacy concerned about providing a platform for open racism, antisemitism, political propaganda and misinformation, and various other types of hate speech. Spreading hate speech and propaganda is bad, and people who are focused on creating a better, more informed populace should absolutely share their ideas.","human_ref_B":"People \"need\" to be accommodating for your Reddit experience?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":956.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdwx1p","c_root_id_B":"ivdigk5","created_at_utc_A":1667802777,"created_at_utc_B":1667793679,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"People have a reason to freak out about Musk buying Twitter. The media may make it a left or right issue, but that\u2019s not the reason a lot of people are very concerned. Twitter has already been financially underground.   Musk has invested in profitable companies, but the acquisition of Twitter makes him seem untethered to reality. It\u2019s worse than all the money he lost purchasing bitcoin & touting it on social media. I think people who are invested in his publicly traded companies have serious reasons to be a little freaked out.","human_ref_B":"People \"need\" to be accommodating for your Reddit experience?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9098.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdlv3z","c_root_id_B":"ivdwx1p","created_at_utc_A":1667795523,"created_at_utc_B":1667802777,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"When you let the crazy conservatives back, the simpletons that are easily brainwashed get weaponized. That\u2019s how we got January 6th.","human_ref_B":"People have a reason to freak out about Musk buying Twitter. The media may make it a left or right issue, but that\u2019s not the reason a lot of people are very concerned. Twitter has already been financially underground.   Musk has invested in profitable companies, but the acquisition of Twitter makes him seem untethered to reality. It\u2019s worse than all the money he lost purchasing bitcoin & touting it on social media. I think people who are invested in his publicly traded companies have serious reasons to be a little freaked out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7254.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdqeue","c_root_id_B":"ivdwx1p","created_at_utc_A":1667798197,"created_at_utc_B":1667802777,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Why does it matter? I'm on the he either makes Twitter fun to use again or burns it to the ground. I'm pretty sure that's how most people see it.","human_ref_B":"People have a reason to freak out about Musk buying Twitter. The media may make it a left or right issue, but that\u2019s not the reason a lot of people are very concerned. Twitter has already been financially underground.   Musk has invested in profitable companies, but the acquisition of Twitter makes him seem untethered to reality. It\u2019s worse than all the money he lost purchasing bitcoin & touting it on social media. I think people who are invested in his publicly traded companies have serious reasons to be a little freaked out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4580.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdigk5","c_root_id_B":"ivf1n4z","created_at_utc_A":1667793679,"created_at_utc_B":1667831574,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"People \"need\" to be accommodating for your Reddit experience?","human_ref_B":"I would look up Stochastic terror. I think that's the big concern people are worried about becoming a bigger issue. Also, don't lie about Elon being free speech. He permanently banned an account on twitter for calling him an asshat.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":37895.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivf1n4z","c_root_id_B":"ivdlv3z","created_at_utc_A":1667831574,"created_at_utc_B":1667795523,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I would look up Stochastic terror. I think that's the big concern people are worried about becoming a bigger issue. Also, don't lie about Elon being free speech. He permanently banned an account on twitter for calling him an asshat.","human_ref_B":"When you let the crazy conservatives back, the simpletons that are easily brainwashed get weaponized. That\u2019s how we got January 6th.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":36051.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivf1n4z","c_root_id_B":"ivdqeue","created_at_utc_A":1667831574,"created_at_utc_B":1667798197,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I would look up Stochastic terror. I think that's the big concern people are worried about becoming a bigger issue. Also, don't lie about Elon being free speech. He permanently banned an account on twitter for calling him an asshat.","human_ref_B":"Why does it matter? I'm on the he either makes Twitter fun to use again or burns it to the ground. I'm pretty sure that's how most people see it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33377.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"iveyx9l","c_root_id_B":"ivf1n4z","created_at_utc_A":1667830357,"created_at_utc_B":1667831574,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"From what I\u2019ve seen on Reddit it seems more like shadenfreuden to me. People that dislike Elon are finding it entertaining to watch him struggle in a frankly very predictable way. And they are also entertained in watching disillusioned right-wing people cope with the fact that Twitter probably isn\u2019t going to be the free speech haven they hoped for (Elon keeps banning dissidents etc).","human_ref_B":"I would look up Stochastic terror. I think that's the big concern people are worried about becoming a bigger issue. Also, don't lie about Elon being free speech. He permanently banned an account on twitter for calling him an asshat.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1217.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdigk5","c_root_id_B":"ivdrtxm","created_at_utc_A":1667793679,"created_at_utc_B":1667799119,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"People \"need\" to be accommodating for your Reddit experience?","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s also worth mentioning that there are a lot of people who are addicted to the app - whether it be the constant doom scrolling, the access to instant news, or whatever it may be. I think in addition to what others have already mentioned, there\u2019s a component of some people feeling like they will lose a limb if they were to delete the app for good.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5440.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdrtxm","c_root_id_B":"ivdlv3z","created_at_utc_A":1667799119,"created_at_utc_B":1667795523,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s also worth mentioning that there are a lot of people who are addicted to the app - whether it be the constant doom scrolling, the access to instant news, or whatever it may be. I think in addition to what others have already mentioned, there\u2019s a component of some people feeling like they will lose a limb if they were to delete the app for good.","human_ref_B":"When you let the crazy conservatives back, the simpletons that are easily brainwashed get weaponized. That\u2019s how we got January 6th.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3596.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdrtxm","c_root_id_B":"ivdqk67","created_at_utc_A":1667799119,"created_at_utc_B":1667798292,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s also worth mentioning that there are a lot of people who are addicted to the app - whether it be the constant doom scrolling, the access to instant news, or whatever it may be. I think in addition to what others have already mentioned, there\u2019s a component of some people feeling like they will lose a limb if they were to delete the app for good.","human_ref_B":"As someone who does not have, nor have I ever had, a twitter account, this whole thing is hilarious to me. From the offer and all that hoopla, to the sink, to the people freaking out on all sides of it.  The only thing not directly hilarious is the layoffs. But even that is a little entertaining because I can only imagine the kind of douche-bros that work there. Yeah, I know, not all of them are.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":827.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdrtxm","c_root_id_B":"ivdqeue","created_at_utc_A":1667799119,"created_at_utc_B":1667798197,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s also worth mentioning that there are a lot of people who are addicted to the app - whether it be the constant doom scrolling, the access to instant news, or whatever it may be. I think in addition to what others have already mentioned, there\u2019s a component of some people feeling like they will lose a limb if they were to delete the app for good.","human_ref_B":"Why does it matter? I'm on the he either makes Twitter fun to use again or burns it to the ground. I'm pretty sure that's how most people see it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":922.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdigk5","c_root_id_B":"ivdqk67","created_at_utc_A":1667793679,"created_at_utc_B":1667798292,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"People \"need\" to be accommodating for your Reddit experience?","human_ref_B":"As someone who does not have, nor have I ever had, a twitter account, this whole thing is hilarious to me. From the offer and all that hoopla, to the sink, to the people freaking out on all sides of it.  The only thing not directly hilarious is the layoffs. But even that is a little entertaining because I can only imagine the kind of douche-bros that work there. Yeah, I know, not all of them are.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4613.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdqk67","c_root_id_B":"ivdlv3z","created_at_utc_A":1667798292,"created_at_utc_B":1667795523,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"As someone who does not have, nor have I ever had, a twitter account, this whole thing is hilarious to me. From the offer and all that hoopla, to the sink, to the people freaking out on all sides of it.  The only thing not directly hilarious is the layoffs. But even that is a little entertaining because I can only imagine the kind of douche-bros that work there. Yeah, I know, not all of them are.","human_ref_B":"When you let the crazy conservatives back, the simpletons that are easily brainwashed get weaponized. That\u2019s how we got January 6th.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2769.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"ivdqk67","c_root_id_B":"ivdqeue","created_at_utc_A":1667798292,"created_at_utc_B":1667798197,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"As someone who does not have, nor have I ever had, a twitter account, this whole thing is hilarious to me. From the offer and all that hoopla, to the sink, to the people freaking out on all sides of it.  The only thing not directly hilarious is the layoffs. But even that is a little entertaining because I can only imagine the kind of douche-bros that work there. Yeah, I know, not all of them are.","human_ref_B":"Why does it matter? I'm on the he either makes Twitter fun to use again or burns it to the ground. I'm pretty sure that's how most people see it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":95.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yobwkf","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: People need to stop freaking out about twitter The reason I\u2019m making this post is cause I see people freaking out over Elon buying twitter and I can\u2019t figure out why. He had enough money to buy the company and he did, if he runs it into the ground someone else will start a replacement. While it seems that twitter as a business isn\u2019t doing so well that\u2019s just how life goes. People on the right side of the political spectrum are celebrating because they can make posts on anything they want now. People on the left are freaking out because people on the right can post what ever they want. People in the middle realize that Twitter is a service they can just not use. Just stop using the app the app if you don\u2019t what\u2019s being done to it, stop posting about it so I can get back to my regular Reddit experience. Also if you really don\u2019t like it make an alternative, people on the right have been using rumble because they didn\u2019t like the main stream services.","c_root_id_A":"iveyx9l","c_root_id_B":"ivfmomg","created_at_utc_A":1667830357,"created_at_utc_B":1667840177,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"From what I\u2019ve seen on Reddit it seems more like shadenfreuden to me. People that dislike Elon are finding it entertaining to watch him struggle in a frankly very predictable way. And they are also entertained in watching disillusioned right-wing people cope with the fact that Twitter probably isn\u2019t going to be the free speech haven they hoped for (Elon keeps banning dissidents etc).","human_ref_B":"The problem is people think Elon will be nefariously pushing the Oligarchy propaganda at the expense of democracy. The amount of worker violations in his company show that he really does not respect the rule of law","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9820.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5klzrd","c_root_id_B":"h5ko9ts","created_at_utc_A":1626567038,"created_at_utc_B":1626568250,"score_A":9,"score_B":90,"human_ref_A":"Just spouses? Shouldnt it also be the legislator themselves, the kids, or any immediate relative. Their job shouldnt be focused on luxurious amounts of money for themselves and family. Their job is to focus on legislation for the general good of the country. If they don't like that rule. Then they should stop having legislation power and play the stock market full time like everyone else without insider information. Legislators don't need massive amounts of money. They already get more than a decent salary to live in a safe neighborhood and send kids to good schools with the best benefits the country has to offer. Any more than that is just greed and luxury.","human_ref_B":"If what you allege is true, that she was inside trading, then it's already illegal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1212.0,"score_ratio":10.0}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5kptvi","c_root_id_B":"h5lshih","created_at_utc_A":1626569076,"created_at_utc_B":1626591752,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"What about the legislators themselves? Can they still trade stocks? Banning their spouses from trading stocks without banning the legislators themselves from doing so is pretty pointless.","human_ref_B":"A person trading in the top ten biggest companies in the world is not suspicious at all. Seems a little strange to advocate such a crude law based on these facts. Wow, a guy bought stocks in the wealthiest company in history and it went up. Shocker!!   I'm sure there is a better rule you should come up that doesn't so aggressively remove the right of individuals.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22676.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5lshih","c_root_id_B":"h5loy71","created_at_utc_A":1626591752,"created_at_utc_B":1626588985,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"A person trading in the top ten biggest companies in the world is not suspicious at all. Seems a little strange to advocate such a crude law based on these facts. Wow, a guy bought stocks in the wealthiest company in history and it went up. Shocker!!   I'm sure there is a better rule you should come up that doesn't so aggressively remove the right of individuals.","human_ref_B":"The more you regulate insider trading the more it effects the retail investor (and nobody else). \/r\/wallstreetbets had talk of unrealized capital gains tax being crafted because of the gamestop shenanigans. This of course would only effect small investors leaving hedge funds mostly unscathed.  The type of reforms you're looking for cant be achieved in the way you want them to under a neoliberal democratic paradigm","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2767.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5kujkt","c_root_id_B":"h5lshih","created_at_utc_A":1626571550,"created_at_utc_B":1626591752,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think it would be pretty reasonable to change your view to allow trading diversified index funds.","human_ref_B":"A person trading in the top ten biggest companies in the world is not suspicious at all. Seems a little strange to advocate such a crude law based on these facts. Wow, a guy bought stocks in the wealthiest company in history and it went up. Shocker!!   I'm sure there is a better rule you should come up that doesn't so aggressively remove the right of individuals.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20202.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5lshih","c_root_id_B":"h5la7yg","created_at_utc_A":1626591752,"created_at_utc_B":1626579581,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A person trading in the top ten biggest companies in the world is not suspicious at all. Seems a little strange to advocate such a crude law based on these facts. Wow, a guy bought stocks in the wealthiest company in history and it went up. Shocker!!   I'm sure there is a better rule you should come up that doesn't so aggressively remove the right of individuals.","human_ref_B":">That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi.  What legislation?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12171.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5kujkt","c_root_id_B":"h5loy71","created_at_utc_A":1626571550,"created_at_utc_B":1626588985,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think it would be pretty reasonable to change your view to allow trading diversified index funds.","human_ref_B":"The more you regulate insider trading the more it effects the retail investor (and nobody else). \/r\/wallstreetbets had talk of unrealized capital gains tax being crafted because of the gamestop shenanigans. This of course would only effect small investors leaving hedge funds mostly unscathed.  The type of reforms you're looking for cant be achieved in the way you want them to under a neoliberal democratic paradigm","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17435.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5la7yg","c_root_id_B":"h5loy71","created_at_utc_A":1626579581,"created_at_utc_B":1626588985,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi.  What legislation?","human_ref_B":"The more you regulate insider trading the more it effects the retail investor (and nobody else). \/r\/wallstreetbets had talk of unrealized capital gains tax being crafted because of the gamestop shenanigans. This of course would only effect small investors leaving hedge funds mostly unscathed.  The type of reforms you're looking for cant be achieved in the way you want them to under a neoliberal democratic paradigm","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9404.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5kujkt","c_root_id_B":"h5mrpnh","created_at_utc_A":1626571550,"created_at_utc_B":1626617572,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think it would be pretty reasonable to change your view to allow trading diversified index funds.","human_ref_B":"It's not just Pelosi, it's everyone in Washington and always has been.  They won't because then they can't cheat the system","labels":0,"seconds_difference":46022.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5mrpnh","c_root_id_B":"h5la7yg","created_at_utc_A":1626617572,"created_at_utc_B":1626579581,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It's not just Pelosi, it's everyone in Washington and always has been.  They won't because then they can't cheat the system","human_ref_B":">That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi.  What legislation?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":37991.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5m9zxn","c_root_id_B":"h5mrpnh","created_at_utc_A":1626606428,"created_at_utc_B":1626617572,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Politicians get off Scott free from so many crimes it\u2019s unbelievable. The people who create our laws are just as bad at not following them as the rest of us. Also, you can already access stock portfolios from politicians online. So if your upset that they have access to insider trading just go on websites like the one I linked below and copy their purchases.  Links:  http:\/\/openinsider.com  https:\/\/www.smartinsider.com\/politicians\/","human_ref_B":"It's not just Pelosi, it's everyone in Washington and always has been.  They won't because then they can't cheat the system","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11144.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5mnpp6","c_root_id_B":"h5mrpnh","created_at_utc_A":1626615534,"created_at_utc_B":1626617572,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What legislation that has passed has benefited big tech companies? It\u2019s much more likely that any pending legislation would actually hurt Apples stock price given how people want to regulate it further.","human_ref_B":"It's not just Pelosi, it's everyone in Washington and always has been.  They won't because then they can't cheat the system","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2038.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5kujkt","c_root_id_B":"h5n4v8a","created_at_utc_A":1626571550,"created_at_utc_B":1626623401,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think it would be pretty reasonable to change your view to allow trading diversified index funds.","human_ref_B":"Republicans do it too homie. And you know who has to make that legislation? It ain't gonna happen.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":51851.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5la7yg","c_root_id_B":"h5n4v8a","created_at_utc_A":1626579581,"created_at_utc_B":1626623401,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi.  What legislation?","human_ref_B":"Republicans do it too homie. And you know who has to make that legislation? It ain't gonna happen.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":43820.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5m9zxn","c_root_id_B":"h5n4v8a","created_at_utc_A":1626606428,"created_at_utc_B":1626623401,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Politicians get off Scott free from so many crimes it\u2019s unbelievable. The people who create our laws are just as bad at not following them as the rest of us. Also, you can already access stock portfolios from politicians online. So if your upset that they have access to insider trading just go on websites like the one I linked below and copy their purchases.  Links:  http:\/\/openinsider.com  https:\/\/www.smartinsider.com\/politicians\/","human_ref_B":"Republicans do it too homie. And you know who has to make that legislation? It ain't gonna happen.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16973.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"omfp29","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi\u2019s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi\u2019s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don\u2019t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock.","c_root_id_A":"h5mnpp6","c_root_id_B":"h5n4v8a","created_at_utc_A":1626615534,"created_at_utc_B":1626623401,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What legislation that has passed has benefited big tech companies? It\u2019s much more likely that any pending legislation would actually hurt Apples stock price given how people want to regulate it further.","human_ref_B":"Republicans do it too homie. And you know who has to make that legislation? It ain't gonna happen.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7867.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"btpo4h","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: We only think Tupac and Biggie were the best rappers of all time because they died so young My argument is basically that Tupac and Biggie Smalls (The Notorious B.I.G.) are only thought of as the GOATs because of the aura surrounding them. They are thought of as almost beyond reproach because they died so young and had the famous rap feud.  If Nas died after *It Was Written* he would be considered the GOAT. If Eminem died after *The Marshall Mathers LP* or *The Eminem Show* he would be definitively considered the GOAT. If Kanye died after *Graduation* or *My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy* he would be considered the GOAT.  Alternatively, If Nas and Jay-Z both died during their famous rap feud, they would be elevated similar to Pac and Big. Same could be said for 50 and Ja Rule.  I could go on all day, but my point is that because these artists kept putting out music (some of which has been considered lackluster), they damaged their reputation as the GOAT in a way Tupac and Big never really had a chance to do. Arguably, Tupac came close to damaging his reputation with all his posthumous releases, but, more people would need to know about his posthumous releases for it to have a significant impact.  Furthermore, the rap feuds bring in more outside attention from the entertainment world. Thus the layman is able to identify Pac and Big as the GOATs because they are simply the most recognizable\/most well known rappers of all time not necessarily the best.  If Mac Miller didn\u2019t make as much frat rap\/corny music coming up, he might in the conversation right now. You see the GOAT label unironically placed on XxXtentacion by his fans, although I\u2019m prepared to admit that is a vocal minority.  In reality Tupac and Big were NOT significantly more talented than others of that era\u2014A Tribe Called Quest, The Fugees, NWA and its members, Snoop, Nas, Big Daddy Kane, Eric B and Rakim, OutKast, Jay-Z and Wu Tang are all arguably just as talented and that\u2019s only scratching the surface. Biggie had an amazing style and crazy flows, Pac had grit and passion. They were both great writers. But are they the greatest of all time? I\u2019d say no and I\u2019d argue they are only thought of as such because they died so young and had a famous rap beef. CMV","c_root_id_A":"ep11vy8","c_root_id_B":"ep15thf","created_at_utc_A":1558983332,"created_at_utc_B":1558984784,"score_A":4,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Except Tupac and biggie aren't the best rappers of all time","human_ref_B":"You can't measure Greatness by objective standards. You cant just play two rap albums back to back and then ask a panel of judges to conclusively say which of them is better than the other.  In terms of album sales, exposing rap to commercial audiences, number of hit songs, influence on pop culture, etc., Tupac and Biggie are to rap what the Beatles and the Stones were to rock. Not necessarily the best at their craft, but certainly without peer for their era in terms of commercial and cultural impact.   Any discussion of \"greatness\" quickly devolves into pedantic bickering unless you set some criteria for what greatness means to you personally.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1452.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"btpo4h","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: We only think Tupac and Biggie were the best rappers of all time because they died so young My argument is basically that Tupac and Biggie Smalls (The Notorious B.I.G.) are only thought of as the GOATs because of the aura surrounding them. They are thought of as almost beyond reproach because they died so young and had the famous rap feud.  If Nas died after *It Was Written* he would be considered the GOAT. If Eminem died after *The Marshall Mathers LP* or *The Eminem Show* he would be definitively considered the GOAT. If Kanye died after *Graduation* or *My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy* he would be considered the GOAT.  Alternatively, If Nas and Jay-Z both died during their famous rap feud, they would be elevated similar to Pac and Big. Same could be said for 50 and Ja Rule.  I could go on all day, but my point is that because these artists kept putting out music (some of which has been considered lackluster), they damaged their reputation as the GOAT in a way Tupac and Big never really had a chance to do. Arguably, Tupac came close to damaging his reputation with all his posthumous releases, but, more people would need to know about his posthumous releases for it to have a significant impact.  Furthermore, the rap feuds bring in more outside attention from the entertainment world. Thus the layman is able to identify Pac and Big as the GOATs because they are simply the most recognizable\/most well known rappers of all time not necessarily the best.  If Mac Miller didn\u2019t make as much frat rap\/corny music coming up, he might in the conversation right now. You see the GOAT label unironically placed on XxXtentacion by his fans, although I\u2019m prepared to admit that is a vocal minority.  In reality Tupac and Big were NOT significantly more talented than others of that era\u2014A Tribe Called Quest, The Fugees, NWA and its members, Snoop, Nas, Big Daddy Kane, Eric B and Rakim, OutKast, Jay-Z and Wu Tang are all arguably just as talented and that\u2019s only scratching the surface. Biggie had an amazing style and crazy flows, Pac had grit and passion. They were both great writers. But are they the greatest of all time? I\u2019d say no and I\u2019d argue they are only thought of as such because they died so young and had a famous rap beef. CMV","c_root_id_A":"ep11vy8","c_root_id_B":"ep19tyj","created_at_utc_A":1558983332,"created_at_utc_B":1558986472,"score_A":4,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Except Tupac and biggie aren't the best rappers of all time","human_ref_B":"Prodigy, Old D B, Big Pun, Heavy D, Nate Dogg  All rappers that died young and aren't thought of as GOATs and whose legacy\/popularity didn't really grow after they died. Notorious and Tupac are considered legends because they are legends. Of course some people are going to have the subjective opinion about who is \"the greatest\" .. but Notorious and Tupac are in the discussion because of their work, not their deaths.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3140.0,"score_ratio":4.25}
+{"post_id":"btpo4h","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: We only think Tupac and Biggie were the best rappers of all time because they died so young My argument is basically that Tupac and Biggie Smalls (The Notorious B.I.G.) are only thought of as the GOATs because of the aura surrounding them. They are thought of as almost beyond reproach because they died so young and had the famous rap feud.  If Nas died after *It Was Written* he would be considered the GOAT. If Eminem died after *The Marshall Mathers LP* or *The Eminem Show* he would be definitively considered the GOAT. If Kanye died after *Graduation* or *My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy* he would be considered the GOAT.  Alternatively, If Nas and Jay-Z both died during their famous rap feud, they would be elevated similar to Pac and Big. Same could be said for 50 and Ja Rule.  I could go on all day, but my point is that because these artists kept putting out music (some of which has been considered lackluster), they damaged their reputation as the GOAT in a way Tupac and Big never really had a chance to do. Arguably, Tupac came close to damaging his reputation with all his posthumous releases, but, more people would need to know about his posthumous releases for it to have a significant impact.  Furthermore, the rap feuds bring in more outside attention from the entertainment world. Thus the layman is able to identify Pac and Big as the GOATs because they are simply the most recognizable\/most well known rappers of all time not necessarily the best.  If Mac Miller didn\u2019t make as much frat rap\/corny music coming up, he might in the conversation right now. You see the GOAT label unironically placed on XxXtentacion by his fans, although I\u2019m prepared to admit that is a vocal minority.  In reality Tupac and Big were NOT significantly more talented than others of that era\u2014A Tribe Called Quest, The Fugees, NWA and its members, Snoop, Nas, Big Daddy Kane, Eric B and Rakim, OutKast, Jay-Z and Wu Tang are all arguably just as talented and that\u2019s only scratching the surface. Biggie had an amazing style and crazy flows, Pac had grit and passion. They were both great writers. But are they the greatest of all time? I\u2019d say no and I\u2019d argue they are only thought of as such because they died so young and had a famous rap beef. CMV","c_root_id_A":"ep11vy8","c_root_id_B":"ep1btqd","created_at_utc_A":1558983332,"created_at_utc_B":1558987176,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Except Tupac and biggie aren't the best rappers of all time","human_ref_B":"I agree that Biggie and (especially) Tupac are way overrated, but you're wrong about why.  It's less that they died young and more that they left a very compelling narrative behind, and, even more importantly, that they came along at the right time for what they were bringing to the table.  Afro-futurism was fading and gangsta was taking over, but the key thing about gangsta is it isn't just \"this lifestyle is awesome,\" but rather \"this lifestyle is awesome but the dark side will catch up with you eventually.\"  That is, the more overtly political edges of earlier gangsta (Ice T explicitly talked about shit like the school-to-prison pipeline during his gunfights and pimping stories) dropped out, and it all got much more psychological and character-focused.  &#x200B;  Character-focused art just invites people to get involved with the characters, and Tupac and Biggie were compelling characters.  Then the trap they were wrapping about ended up getting both of them killed!  You can't ask for a more compelling life-imitating art thing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3844.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhngx6k","c_root_id_B":"dhngwdp","created_at_utc_A":1494977409,"created_at_utc_B":1494977378,"score_A":17,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you that it could be bad politically for the Democrats to push for impeachment of Trump. But that doesn't mean it's shortsighted: quite the opposite.   The issue with Trump is not that he's a Republican or a conservative. The issue is not that he's costing Democrats votes, or pushing aside the Democratic political agenda. The issue is that *he is a goddamn child occupying the most powerful position on earth*. Yes, Pence has more mainstream appeal, and will probably be even more effective at pushing the Republican party line. He's also an adult with experience in government and is much less inclined to shoot from the hip on matters of life and death. If he were president instead of Trump, that would be terrible for the Democrats in the next election. It would also be a much better state of affairs for America and the world.   Impeachment would only be shortsighted for Democrats if those Democrats valued their party over their country.","human_ref_B":"If Pence is in charge, Bannon and Miller are probably gone instantly.  A white house without Bannon and Miller is better than one with them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhnm5ad","c_root_id_B":"dhnrfac","created_at_utc_A":1494983864,"created_at_utc_B":1494990217,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"If Trump was successfully impeached, that would hang on President Pence like an anchor.   You saw all of this going on, why didn't you stop it?  And while I don't like his policy, I don't think that he is able to do the task without embarrassing himself on a daily basis.","human_ref_B":"Ill be honest, you are completely missing the point of why Trump is bad. It has nothing to do with his party, or even politics at all. He's a loose cannon that's unfit to be the most powerful man in the world. I would impeach him even if it meant Pence was guaranteed to be president for 8 years with a Republican senate and house the whole time. I would give the GOP control of every state and local government for 10 years just to remove Trump  Removing Trump is so much bigger than stupid little partisan squabbles. Trump can destabilize the entire country from his Twitter account. He doesn't understand policy. Doesn't understand international relations. Doesn't understand macroeconomics. Doesn't seem at all interesting in learning any of these things. Doesn't have any skills at all that make qualified for this job. He's great at campaigning, but doesn't have the first clue how to actually govern. That's a frightening thing for the most powerful person in the world to have no idea how to do his job","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6353.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhnhacq","c_root_id_B":"dhnrfac","created_at_utc_A":1494977901,"created_at_utc_B":1494990217,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It's tough, but you'll need to take a long view approach to this matter. What is key to the future success of the office of the President is that there is an office with dignity, respect, and integrity. US Presidents are fairly unique in the world in that they are both the Head of Government and Head of State. The President serves both a symbolic and formative role. Many European countries for instance split Head of Government and Head of state between Prime Minister and President. I bring this up to reinforce how crucial it is that the office of the President continue to be respectable even after Trump is gone. At the moment Trump is destroying all the foundations of the Presidency through reckless and careless actions. This is actually what most Republicans are pissed at him for, if at all. While you may think Pence is just another poison it is unlikely he will break the norms of what a president can and cannot do with the office. With this in mind it would better to proceed with impeachment so as to preserve the integrity of the office of President. Who knows Trump might even try and find a way to get around 22nd Amendment limiting him to 2 terms in office.","human_ref_B":"Ill be honest, you are completely missing the point of why Trump is bad. It has nothing to do with his party, or even politics at all. He's a loose cannon that's unfit to be the most powerful man in the world. I would impeach him even if it meant Pence was guaranteed to be president for 8 years with a Republican senate and house the whole time. I would give the GOP control of every state and local government for 10 years just to remove Trump  Removing Trump is so much bigger than stupid little partisan squabbles. Trump can destabilize the entire country from his Twitter account. He doesn't understand policy. Doesn't understand international relations. Doesn't understand macroeconomics. Doesn't seem at all interesting in learning any of these things. Doesn't have any skills at all that make qualified for this job. He's great at campaigning, but doesn't have the first clue how to actually govern. That's a frightening thing for the most powerful person in the world to have no idea how to do his job","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12316.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhngwdp","c_root_id_B":"dhnrfac","created_at_utc_A":1494977378,"created_at_utc_B":1494990217,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"If Pence is in charge, Bannon and Miller are probably gone instantly.  A white house without Bannon and Miller is better than one with them.","human_ref_B":"Ill be honest, you are completely missing the point of why Trump is bad. It has nothing to do with his party, or even politics at all. He's a loose cannon that's unfit to be the most powerful man in the world. I would impeach him even if it meant Pence was guaranteed to be president for 8 years with a Republican senate and house the whole time. I would give the GOP control of every state and local government for 10 years just to remove Trump  Removing Trump is so much bigger than stupid little partisan squabbles. Trump can destabilize the entire country from his Twitter account. He doesn't understand policy. Doesn't understand international relations. Doesn't understand macroeconomics. Doesn't seem at all interesting in learning any of these things. Doesn't have any skills at all that make qualified for this job. He's great at campaigning, but doesn't have the first clue how to actually govern. That's a frightening thing for the most powerful person in the world to have no idea how to do his job","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12839.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhnrfac","c_root_id_B":"dhnhgug","created_at_utc_A":1494990217,"created_at_utc_B":1494978139,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Ill be honest, you are completely missing the point of why Trump is bad. It has nothing to do with his party, or even politics at all. He's a loose cannon that's unfit to be the most powerful man in the world. I would impeach him even if it meant Pence was guaranteed to be president for 8 years with a Republican senate and house the whole time. I would give the GOP control of every state and local government for 10 years just to remove Trump  Removing Trump is so much bigger than stupid little partisan squabbles. Trump can destabilize the entire country from his Twitter account. He doesn't understand policy. Doesn't understand international relations. Doesn't understand macroeconomics. Doesn't seem at all interesting in learning any of these things. Doesn't have any skills at all that make qualified for this job. He's great at campaigning, but doesn't have the first clue how to actually govern. That's a frightening thing for the most powerful person in the world to have no idea how to do his job","human_ref_B":"If Trump were to get impeached, there would have to be a Democratic House and a Republican Senate to go along. (It's a guarantee that Republicans will retain the Senate) This means that if Trump got impeached and removed it would be for something Republicans can't defend, so I doubt his approval rating would rise.   A President Pence is much better than Trump. For starters, he is just your average Republican. What about him is worse than Trump? I mean Pence wouldn't pull shit like trying to ban an entire religion from the country.  Pence would be a president with positions I disagree with. That's much less destructive than an incompetent hateful buffoon who sows distrust and divisiveness  and in your scenario, has committed impeachment worthy acts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12078.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhnm5ad","c_root_id_B":"dhntkhi","created_at_utc_A":1494983864,"created_at_utc_B":1494993207,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"If Trump was successfully impeached, that would hang on President Pence like an anchor.   You saw all of this going on, why didn't you stop it?  And while I don't like his policy, I don't think that he is able to do the task without embarrassing himself on a daily basis.","human_ref_B":"You are vastly oversimplifying the politics of a potential impeachment. There are a lot of unknowns here that would complicate your narrative.     1. Why is Trump being impeached in your hypothetical? Has the Russia investigation turned up nothing, or has there been serious criminal activity? The severity of the charges dramatically changes the political calculus here. You casually mention that Clinton's impeachment boosted his numbers - but you forget that Nixon's resignation did very serious harm to the Republican party. If Trump's hypothetical impeachment is a result of Nixonian levels of corruption, the fallout will spread much further than Trump himself, like rendering the most hardcore Trump allies (Pence included) politically toxic.     2. Who impeached Trump? If it was a significant part of the GOP, expect Republican infighting to worsen and no significant \"populist wins\" on the legislative front. If Democrats control Congress in this scenario, Pence will have no legislative success and likely still be facing investigations and hearings throughout the entirety of his remainder in office to determine any culpability. Even if he's squeaky clean, Democrats will make Trumps impeachment front and center a l\u00e0 Benghazi for a while - and tying Pence to Trump as much as possible.     3. An interesting side effect of Trump's controversial administration is that it is actually making it easier for Republicans to work on unpopular legislation. Trump is currently distracting from a *very* unpopular health care bill. You mention a few \"populist wins\" as though that will be a cakewalk. The GOP has achieved exactly zero populist wins in the most forgiving period of a presidency - how exactly will this become easier when *also* dealing with the political fallout from an impeachment, without any distractions for cover? The GOP is frankly not high functioning at the moment, and an impeachment wouldn't help.        4. Pence wasn't all too popular in Indiana before he was tapped for VP. I don't think he has the chops for a presidential bid even without the hypothetical involvement in an impeached administration.     Long story short, no way in hell is President Pence going to have the political capital or public popularity to pull any of that off.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9343.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhntkhi","c_root_id_B":"dhnhacq","created_at_utc_A":1494993207,"created_at_utc_B":1494977901,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You are vastly oversimplifying the politics of a potential impeachment. There are a lot of unknowns here that would complicate your narrative.     1. Why is Trump being impeached in your hypothetical? Has the Russia investigation turned up nothing, or has there been serious criminal activity? The severity of the charges dramatically changes the political calculus here. You casually mention that Clinton's impeachment boosted his numbers - but you forget that Nixon's resignation did very serious harm to the Republican party. If Trump's hypothetical impeachment is a result of Nixonian levels of corruption, the fallout will spread much further than Trump himself, like rendering the most hardcore Trump allies (Pence included) politically toxic.     2. Who impeached Trump? If it was a significant part of the GOP, expect Republican infighting to worsen and no significant \"populist wins\" on the legislative front. If Democrats control Congress in this scenario, Pence will have no legislative success and likely still be facing investigations and hearings throughout the entirety of his remainder in office to determine any culpability. Even if he's squeaky clean, Democrats will make Trumps impeachment front and center a l\u00e0 Benghazi for a while - and tying Pence to Trump as much as possible.     3. An interesting side effect of Trump's controversial administration is that it is actually making it easier for Republicans to work on unpopular legislation. Trump is currently distracting from a *very* unpopular health care bill. You mention a few \"populist wins\" as though that will be a cakewalk. The GOP has achieved exactly zero populist wins in the most forgiving period of a presidency - how exactly will this become easier when *also* dealing with the political fallout from an impeachment, without any distractions for cover? The GOP is frankly not high functioning at the moment, and an impeachment wouldn't help.        4. Pence wasn't all too popular in Indiana before he was tapped for VP. I don't think he has the chops for a presidential bid even without the hypothetical involvement in an impeached administration.     Long story short, no way in hell is President Pence going to have the political capital or public popularity to pull any of that off.","human_ref_B":"It's tough, but you'll need to take a long view approach to this matter. What is key to the future success of the office of the President is that there is an office with dignity, respect, and integrity. US Presidents are fairly unique in the world in that they are both the Head of Government and Head of State. The President serves both a symbolic and formative role. Many European countries for instance split Head of Government and Head of state between Prime Minister and President. I bring this up to reinforce how crucial it is that the office of the President continue to be respectable even after Trump is gone. At the moment Trump is destroying all the foundations of the Presidency through reckless and careless actions. This is actually what most Republicans are pissed at him for, if at all. While you may think Pence is just another poison it is unlikely he will break the norms of what a president can and cannot do with the office. With this in mind it would better to proceed with impeachment so as to preserve the integrity of the office of President. Who knows Trump might even try and find a way to get around 22nd Amendment limiting him to 2 terms in office.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15306.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhngwdp","c_root_id_B":"dhntkhi","created_at_utc_A":1494977378,"created_at_utc_B":1494993207,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"If Pence is in charge, Bannon and Miller are probably gone instantly.  A white house without Bannon and Miller is better than one with them.","human_ref_B":"You are vastly oversimplifying the politics of a potential impeachment. There are a lot of unknowns here that would complicate your narrative.     1. Why is Trump being impeached in your hypothetical? Has the Russia investigation turned up nothing, or has there been serious criminal activity? The severity of the charges dramatically changes the political calculus here. You casually mention that Clinton's impeachment boosted his numbers - but you forget that Nixon's resignation did very serious harm to the Republican party. If Trump's hypothetical impeachment is a result of Nixonian levels of corruption, the fallout will spread much further than Trump himself, like rendering the most hardcore Trump allies (Pence included) politically toxic.     2. Who impeached Trump? If it was a significant part of the GOP, expect Republican infighting to worsen and no significant \"populist wins\" on the legislative front. If Democrats control Congress in this scenario, Pence will have no legislative success and likely still be facing investigations and hearings throughout the entirety of his remainder in office to determine any culpability. Even if he's squeaky clean, Democrats will make Trumps impeachment front and center a l\u00e0 Benghazi for a while - and tying Pence to Trump as much as possible.     3. An interesting side effect of Trump's controversial administration is that it is actually making it easier for Republicans to work on unpopular legislation. Trump is currently distracting from a *very* unpopular health care bill. You mention a few \"populist wins\" as though that will be a cakewalk. The GOP has achieved exactly zero populist wins in the most forgiving period of a presidency - how exactly will this become easier when *also* dealing with the political fallout from an impeachment, without any distractions for cover? The GOP is frankly not high functioning at the moment, and an impeachment wouldn't help.        4. Pence wasn't all too popular in Indiana before he was tapped for VP. I don't think he has the chops for a presidential bid even without the hypothetical involvement in an impeached administration.     Long story short, no way in hell is President Pence going to have the political capital or public popularity to pull any of that off.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15829.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhntkhi","c_root_id_B":"dhnhgug","created_at_utc_A":1494993207,"created_at_utc_B":1494978139,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You are vastly oversimplifying the politics of a potential impeachment. There are a lot of unknowns here that would complicate your narrative.     1. Why is Trump being impeached in your hypothetical? Has the Russia investigation turned up nothing, or has there been serious criminal activity? The severity of the charges dramatically changes the political calculus here. You casually mention that Clinton's impeachment boosted his numbers - but you forget that Nixon's resignation did very serious harm to the Republican party. If Trump's hypothetical impeachment is a result of Nixonian levels of corruption, the fallout will spread much further than Trump himself, like rendering the most hardcore Trump allies (Pence included) politically toxic.     2. Who impeached Trump? If it was a significant part of the GOP, expect Republican infighting to worsen and no significant \"populist wins\" on the legislative front. If Democrats control Congress in this scenario, Pence will have no legislative success and likely still be facing investigations and hearings throughout the entirety of his remainder in office to determine any culpability. Even if he's squeaky clean, Democrats will make Trumps impeachment front and center a l\u00e0 Benghazi for a while - and tying Pence to Trump as much as possible.     3. An interesting side effect of Trump's controversial administration is that it is actually making it easier for Republicans to work on unpopular legislation. Trump is currently distracting from a *very* unpopular health care bill. You mention a few \"populist wins\" as though that will be a cakewalk. The GOP has achieved exactly zero populist wins in the most forgiving period of a presidency - how exactly will this become easier when *also* dealing with the political fallout from an impeachment, without any distractions for cover? The GOP is frankly not high functioning at the moment, and an impeachment wouldn't help.        4. Pence wasn't all too popular in Indiana before he was tapped for VP. I don't think he has the chops for a presidential bid even without the hypothetical involvement in an impeached administration.     Long story short, no way in hell is President Pence going to have the political capital or public popularity to pull any of that off.","human_ref_B":"If Trump were to get impeached, there would have to be a Democratic House and a Republican Senate to go along. (It's a guarantee that Republicans will retain the Senate) This means that if Trump got impeached and removed it would be for something Republicans can't defend, so I doubt his approval rating would rise.   A President Pence is much better than Trump. For starters, he is just your average Republican. What about him is worse than Trump? I mean Pence wouldn't pull shit like trying to ban an entire religion from the country.  Pence would be a president with positions I disagree with. That's much less destructive than an incompetent hateful buffoon who sows distrust and divisiveness  and in your scenario, has committed impeachment worthy acts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15068.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhnm5ad","c_root_id_B":"dhnhacq","created_at_utc_A":1494983864,"created_at_utc_B":1494977901,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If Trump was successfully impeached, that would hang on President Pence like an anchor.   You saw all of this going on, why didn't you stop it?  And while I don't like his policy, I don't think that he is able to do the task without embarrassing himself on a daily basis.","human_ref_B":"It's tough, but you'll need to take a long view approach to this matter. What is key to the future success of the office of the President is that there is an office with dignity, respect, and integrity. US Presidents are fairly unique in the world in that they are both the Head of Government and Head of State. The President serves both a symbolic and formative role. Many European countries for instance split Head of Government and Head of state between Prime Minister and President. I bring this up to reinforce how crucial it is that the office of the President continue to be respectable even after Trump is gone. At the moment Trump is destroying all the foundations of the Presidency through reckless and careless actions. This is actually what most Republicans are pissed at him for, if at all. While you may think Pence is just another poison it is unlikely he will break the norms of what a president can and cannot do with the office. With this in mind it would better to proceed with impeachment so as to preserve the integrity of the office of President. Who knows Trump might even try and find a way to get around 22nd Amendment limiting him to 2 terms in office.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5963.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhngwdp","c_root_id_B":"dhnm5ad","created_at_utc_A":1494977378,"created_at_utc_B":1494983864,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If Pence is in charge, Bannon and Miller are probably gone instantly.  A white house without Bannon and Miller is better than one with them.","human_ref_B":"If Trump was successfully impeached, that would hang on President Pence like an anchor.   You saw all of this going on, why didn't you stop it?  And while I don't like his policy, I don't think that he is able to do the task without embarrassing himself on a daily basis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6486.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhnhgug","c_root_id_B":"dhnm5ad","created_at_utc_A":1494978139,"created_at_utc_B":1494983864,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If Trump were to get impeached, there would have to be a Democratic House and a Republican Senate to go along. (It's a guarantee that Republicans will retain the Senate) This means that if Trump got impeached and removed it would be for something Republicans can't defend, so I doubt his approval rating would rise.   A President Pence is much better than Trump. For starters, he is just your average Republican. What about him is worse than Trump? I mean Pence wouldn't pull shit like trying to ban an entire religion from the country.  Pence would be a president with positions I disagree with. That's much less destructive than an incompetent hateful buffoon who sows distrust and divisiveness  and in your scenario, has committed impeachment worthy acts.","human_ref_B":"If Trump was successfully impeached, that would hang on President Pence like an anchor.   You saw all of this going on, why didn't you stop it?  And while I don't like his policy, I don't think that he is able to do the task without embarrassing himself on a daily basis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5725.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"6bl091","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: It is shortsighted for Democrats \/ liberals \/ progressives to push for impeachment so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, because a President Pence has all the benefits of a Trump with few of the drawbacks The Trump presidency is proving to be a lightning rod for scandal and snafu. I read many pieces on how Republicans are tolerating his unorthodox method because he will sign Republican laws. Combined with the pissed-off and motivated opposition on the left, the number of unforced errors Trump is committing, blowback is increasingly endangering Congressmen's seats.   Having won the presidency for the Republicans, they need someone to stop making headaches for them, sign their legislation and stop inflaming the electorate: Mike Pence. While his policies are only a different shade of toxic than Trump's to the left, his whitebread personality will make him seem moderate compared to Trump and will fail the ignite the opposition as strongly as Trump does.  Not to mention that Clinton's approval rating was boosted by impeachment. If Dems somehow were able to impeach Trump, they would be blamed by the right, proclaiming the Democrats are trying to sabotage conservative solutions before they even had a chance to be tried. So long as the impeachment happened early enough to get some populist wins back in their column before the next election (we Americans have pathetically short memories), this would galvanize enough on-the-fence conservatives and moderates to back President Generic Conservative Pence as well as Republican congressmen.  I beg of you, please: **change my view!**  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhofosp","c_root_id_B":"dhop8di","created_at_utc_A":1495035198,"created_at_utc_B":1495045491,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think we need to consider the dynamic of the two parties as a whole. Before the presidential election, many people were suggesting that this would be the end of the modern Republican Party. Losing twice to Obama and the \"inevitable\" triumph of Clinton over Trump would force Republicans to revisit their policies to drum up more support. Now obviously that didn't end up happening. Trump won and it's been a shitshow ever since.   But what is this shitshow saying about republicans? It's saying that we had two years with a democrat president that were scandal free but republicans barely clinched the election against the will of the American majority and what are they doing with it? Embarrassing themselves. Trump is kind of ruining the image of republicans and the republican led congress is doing nothing to address it. They got the power and are doing a spectacular job of demonstrating why they shouldn't have the power.   So THATS what democrats should hang onto regarding impeachment talks. It wouldn't be shortsighted for them to push for it, because this administration is such a colossal mess that they likely wouldn't have to worry about Pence because Trump is driving the nails into the coffin of the Republican Party. If they have to deal with Pence for two years, then so be it. But after Pence they won't have to deal with republicans for a long, long time.   I'm not saying I agree with that strategy or that it would work at all, but that could be the motivation for dems to push for impeachment as a long term strategy. They would bargain that a Pence presidency isn't enough to salvage the damage to the image of the republicans as a whole.","human_ref_B":"You're probably overestimating the speed at which our government works.  If impeachment proceedings were started today it would still likely be 6 months out minimum before he is removed from office.  We'll first need all the comey memos. The russian investigation information will also be requested. Just gathering all that up and presenting it along with testimony before the house could take a month if not months. Follow that with a lot of debate. Even if you get enough for impeachment in the house it now moves onto the senate.  The senate will again request all of the info in detail. Have hearings. Gather testimony of those involved. The whole process will be held up by general rules.  It's entirely possible this gets drug all the way into the 2018 election cycle. By the time pence actually has power to take action we could be well on the way to a democrat controlled house where you won't see a single spending bill get through to the senate. You'd have a split congress and a lame duck president with practically 0 political capital.  Now that's the speedy option. If instead the whole investigation drags out. We await the final results of the FBI investigation or even appoint a special investigator we could be looking past 2018 before impeachment hearings start.  If that were the case you'd end up with Trump being impeached in the middle of an election cycle while republicans try and fill and open seat candidate to replace trump splitting the party.  Basicallly the process takes so long that democrats could gain a ton from it. If impeachment hearings do start in that theory the worst thing for democrats would be to make it an expedient process (and it's real real easy to slow down)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10293.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"vtpmay","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: People who say stuff like \"Oh there's more information available now than ever before, why can't people educate themselves \" do not understand people If I handed you an accurate informative 100 page book on any subject right now, in all likelihood, you would never read it.  The same goes for most people.  1. People tend to only read things that they are immediately interested in. Just because something EXISTS doesn't mean people will flock towards it. 2. People have limited time and energy and that fact has not changed from history until now. Even if the amount of knowledge available literally multiples by a factor of 10,000,000,000 humans will still only use certain, limited parts of it. 3. Not all information is equal or accurate. People tend to remember stuff from the most convenient, flattering, easy to digest sources. That doesn't mean the information is correct either. 4. People tend to try not to work. They tend towards leisure. Learning new things, especially difficult-to-grasp, complex subjects is a lot of work and takes a lot of time. People just won't do it.  And those are my reasons. But perhaps I'm colossally wrong.  &#x200B;  Change?  My?  View?","c_root_id_A":"if8oooi","c_root_id_B":"if8p8yf","created_at_utc_A":1657219342,"created_at_utc_B":1657219555,"score_A":3,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":">People tend to only read things that they are immediately interested in. Just because something EXISTS doesn't mean people will flock towards it.  Don't assume that information is shared only through reading anymore. There are lots of educational Youtube videos or TED talks that can even be mildly entertaining.  >People have limited time and energy and that fact has not changed from history until now. Even if the amount of knowledge available literally multiples by a factor of 10,000,000,000 humans will still only use certain, limited parts of it.\r   \r  If you have enough time to watch TV or Netflix, you have enough time to watch a 15 minute video on something educational.    Also podcasts exist now, so driving to and from work are just other opportunities to learn.  >Not all information is equal or accurate. People tend to remember stuff from the most convenient, flattering, easy to digest sources. That doesn't mean the information is correct either.  100% agree - but good teachers exist on various mediums.    >People tend to try not to work. They tend towards leisure. Learning new things, especially difficult-to-grasp, complex subjects is a lot of work and takes a lot of time. People just won't do it.  Sure - you probably won't suddenly pick up statistics or complex math. But there is **a lot** of information out there.","human_ref_B":"I feel like you're making the mistake of confounding people who do not like human nature with people who do not understand human nature. I am completely aware people are generally stupid IRL and unwilling to entertain new ideas outside their comfort zone and I find myself saying things similar to your quote constantly.   Isn't it possible that someone can be frustrated at how willfully ignorant someone can remain in spite of evidence thrown into their face?   Take flat earthers. They literally exist. Simple experiments that a child can do with a pencil, paper, protractor, and the sun can prove the earth is spherical.   Upon encountering a flat earther, arguing with them for a little bit, and giving up shortly thereafter since they're talking to a brick wall, wouldn't \"JFC why can't people educate themselves?\" be an appropriate exclamation of frustration?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":213.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"vtpmay","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: People who say stuff like \"Oh there's more information available now than ever before, why can't people educate themselves \" do not understand people If I handed you an accurate informative 100 page book on any subject right now, in all likelihood, you would never read it.  The same goes for most people.  1. People tend to only read things that they are immediately interested in. Just because something EXISTS doesn't mean people will flock towards it. 2. People have limited time and energy and that fact has not changed from history until now. Even if the amount of knowledge available literally multiples by a factor of 10,000,000,000 humans will still only use certain, limited parts of it. 3. Not all information is equal or accurate. People tend to remember stuff from the most convenient, flattering, easy to digest sources. That doesn't mean the information is correct either. 4. People tend to try not to work. They tend towards leisure. Learning new things, especially difficult-to-grasp, complex subjects is a lot of work and takes a lot of time. People just won't do it.  And those are my reasons. But perhaps I'm colossally wrong.  &#x200B;  Change?  My?  View?","c_root_id_A":"if8oooi","c_root_id_B":"if92ih8","created_at_utc_A":1657219342,"created_at_utc_B":1657224688,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">People tend to only read things that they are immediately interested in. Just because something EXISTS doesn't mean people will flock towards it.  Don't assume that information is shared only through reading anymore. There are lots of educational Youtube videos or TED talks that can even be mildly entertaining.  >People have limited time and energy and that fact has not changed from history until now. Even if the amount of knowledge available literally multiples by a factor of 10,000,000,000 humans will still only use certain, limited parts of it.\r   \r  If you have enough time to watch TV or Netflix, you have enough time to watch a 15 minute video on something educational.    Also podcasts exist now, so driving to and from work are just other opportunities to learn.  >Not all information is equal or accurate. People tend to remember stuff from the most convenient, flattering, easy to digest sources. That doesn't mean the information is correct either.  100% agree - but good teachers exist on various mediums.    >People tend to try not to work. They tend towards leisure. Learning new things, especially difficult-to-grasp, complex subjects is a lot of work and takes a lot of time. People just won't do it.  Sure - you probably won't suddenly pick up statistics or complex math. But there is **a lot** of information out there.","human_ref_B":"No, they do understand people. They understand perfectly the issues you mentioned, and they're frustrated by it and criticizing it.   People *should* try to expand their knowledge, especially when it's a topic they're actually discussing or perhaps voting on. People *should* be more interested in a number of issues.   That's what's being criticized in that sentence. All you've done is acknowledged that yeah, a lot of people don't like to educate themselves and can't be bothered, but that's exactly the problem.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5346.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"vtpmay","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: People who say stuff like \"Oh there's more information available now than ever before, why can't people educate themselves \" do not understand people If I handed you an accurate informative 100 page book on any subject right now, in all likelihood, you would never read it.  The same goes for most people.  1. People tend to only read things that they are immediately interested in. Just because something EXISTS doesn't mean people will flock towards it. 2. People have limited time and energy and that fact has not changed from history until now. Even if the amount of knowledge available literally multiples by a factor of 10,000,000,000 humans will still only use certain, limited parts of it. 3. Not all information is equal or accurate. People tend to remember stuff from the most convenient, flattering, easy to digest sources. That doesn't mean the information is correct either. 4. People tend to try not to work. They tend towards leisure. Learning new things, especially difficult-to-grasp, complex subjects is a lot of work and takes a lot of time. People just won't do it.  And those are my reasons. But perhaps I'm colossally wrong.  &#x200B;  Change?  My?  View?","c_root_id_A":"if8ww4a","c_root_id_B":"if92ih8","created_at_utc_A":1657222519,"created_at_utc_B":1657224688,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I suppose I'm one of the people who might say the thing you're quoting in your post title, so maybe if I clarified a little of what I think we can discuss whether you think I might be right or not.   First of all, I'm well aware that people don't always migrate to the most accurate information. I mean, there are all kinds of people who believe that the Earth is flat. Obviously.   *But,* I think a lot of my orientation towards \"let the people educate themselves\" has to do with my relationship to information gatekeepers. The New York Times is a great paper, with great journalistic standards, but they don't know *everything* about a topic. In fact, when they report on topics that I know something about, they often get things wrong. They also have their own biases, their own agenda, and so on. *And*, I frequently hear a ton of hand-wringing from journos at the *Times* about what's going to happen with all this misinformation floating around, and won't somebody please do something about it so that we can regain our place as the only source of reliable information out there.   A lot of times, the solution they seem to want to offer is some kind of censorship: shut down outlets, websites, and so on, that are sharing dangerous misinformation. Unfortunately, I strongly disagree that this is a good solution. First of all, it's totally not viable. Second of all, it provides the people who are spreading misinformation an added authority when they can truthfully claim that people are trying to censor them.   I'm a strong believer in free and open access to information. And yes, I know that the cost of this is going to be that some people will share false information, and other people will believe it. But that's the price of open information, and to me it's well worth it.","human_ref_B":"No, they do understand people. They understand perfectly the issues you mentioned, and they're frustrated by it and criticizing it.   People *should* try to expand their knowledge, especially when it's a topic they're actually discussing or perhaps voting on. People *should* be more interested in a number of issues.   That's what's being criticized in that sentence. All you've done is acknowledged that yeah, a lot of people don't like to educate themselves and can't be bothered, but that's exactly the problem.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2169.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfxfh","c_root_id_B":"e8qej13","created_at_utc_A":1540917645,"created_at_utc_B":1540916547,"score_A":106,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":">  If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   That would by definition be an *individual* construct, not a social one.  Social constructionism specifically covers:  >> ***jointly*** constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for ***shared*** assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed ***in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual***","human_ref_B":"The days of the week are a social construct, but if you went around saying that today was a Friday, you would be incorrect.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1098.0,"score_ratio":1.4324324324}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfuh1","c_root_id_B":"e8qfxfh","created_at_utc_A":1540917582,"created_at_utc_B":1540917645,"score_A":43,"score_B":106,"human_ref_A":"Your interpretation is part of gender's social construction. It only exists because of how gender has been explained to you by people you trust. There are many interpretations. But, since you've said that no interpretations can be \"factual\" (do you mean objective?) your interpretation of gender as a dichotomy can be no more true than that of a person who calls it a spectrum.  Taking it a step further, when you say gender is a \"spectrum,\" you're semantically including everyone's personal interpretation of their own gender. When you say gender is strictly dichotomous, you're imposing that binary on other people, and depending on how you interpret the binary, that will involve false assumptions when it comes to people who challenge the binary.  So while neither statement can be objectively true, the statement \"gender is a dichotomy\" is more flawed because it's a more specific falsehood.","human_ref_B":">  If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   That would by definition be an *individual* construct, not a social one.  Social constructionism specifically covers:  >> ***jointly*** constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for ***shared*** assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed ***in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual***","labels":0,"seconds_difference":63.0,"score_ratio":2.4651162791}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfxfh","c_root_id_B":"e8qeu33","created_at_utc_A":1540917645,"created_at_utc_B":1540916789,"score_A":106,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":">  If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   That would by definition be an *individual* construct, not a social one.  Social constructionism specifically covers:  >> ***jointly*** constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for ***shared*** assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed ***in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual***","human_ref_B":"There can still be facts associated with things that are socially constructed.  The borders between nations are socially constructed, but it's still a fact that I'm currently in the US. Money is a social construct, but I still have $X in my bank account. Etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":856.0,"score_ratio":3.5333333333}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfudd","c_root_id_B":"e8qfxfh","created_at_utc_A":1540917580,"created_at_utc_B":1540917645,"score_A":21,"score_B":106,"human_ref_A":"You, individually, are not \"society\". Only collectively does a large group of people become a \"society\", and only such a group can create \"social constructs\" (although the exact size is a flexible concept, it certainly doesn't extend to one person).   So, no, you can't just say \"under my social construct, gender is dichotomous\".  However, it is true that a dichotomous gender construct is held by the majority of people...   But the whole point of the current gender movement, such as it is, is in alignment with your view: the majority dichotomous social construct of gender is arbitrary and not factual, and therefore no one should be required to fit into that mold.  >and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.  Also, I'm not sure where you get the idea that social constructs are just so, and no debate about them is possible. The whole point of social constructs is that they are created and shaped by conversation and debate.","human_ref_B":">  If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   That would by definition be an *individual* construct, not a social one.  Social constructionism specifically covers:  >> ***jointly*** constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for ***shared*** assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed ***in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual***","labels":0,"seconds_difference":65.0,"score_ratio":5.0476190476}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfhcw","c_root_id_B":"e8qfxfh","created_at_utc_A":1540917299,"created_at_utc_B":1540917645,"score_A":10,"score_B":106,"human_ref_A":"There's  a bit of an empistemological issue with this kind of view, which is that everything which we think of as \"factual\" is also a shared assumption.  That kind of stuff comes up in the \"we're living in a simulation\" claims that had a rash of popularity recently, but goes back at least as far as the allegory of the cave.  So, if you want to see people make arguments about how something is \"factual\" rather than \"shared assumption\" you'll have to provide some more specific guidelines about how you want to distinguish fact from shared assumption.  Now, you can't categorically eliminate \"all but one\" scheme for gender, but there are certainly people with particular ideas about gender that don't match up with falsifiable observations.  For example, there's the people who claim that there's no difference between men and women's brains or that it's impossible to distinguish male from female human tissue with a microscope.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Barr_body","human_ref_B":">  If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   That would by definition be an *individual* construct, not a social one.  Social constructionism specifically covers:  >> ***jointly*** constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for ***shared*** assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed ***in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual***","labels":0,"seconds_difference":346.0,"score_ratio":10.6}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfxfh","c_root_id_B":"e8qeok0","created_at_utc_A":1540917645,"created_at_utc_B":1540916668,"score_A":106,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":">  If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   That would by definition be an *individual* construct, not a social one.  Social constructionism specifically covers:  >> ***jointly*** constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for ***shared*** assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed ***in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual***","human_ref_B":"\"Money\" is a social construct.  Do you think we can't make any factual interpretation of money.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":977.0,"score_ratio":11.7777777778}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfxfh","c_root_id_B":"e8qfmkv","created_at_utc_A":1540917645,"created_at_utc_B":1540917412,"score_A":106,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">  If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   That would by definition be an *individual* construct, not a social one.  Social constructionism specifically covers:  >> ***jointly*** constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for ***shared*** assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed ***in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual***","human_ref_B":"When someone says that \"gender is a social construct,\" they are referring to **social constructionism**, which posits that meaning is created through social interaction across space and time. For gender, this means that what is seen as *masculine* or *feminine* changes based on the historical and political context. Gender as a social construct means that people are *socialized* to accept that certain things are \"inherently\" gendered, such as clothing, behaviors, emotions, careers, or colors. What is viewed as \"natural and normal\" for gendered people changes based on when and where you look.   &#x200B;  The theory of social constructionism only defines **identity** as a matter of shared meaning, but it doesn't define the parameters for that identity. So when you give the examples of \"spectrum vs. dichotomous,\" I don't feel like it accurately captures the meaning from a sociological viewpoint.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":233.0,"score_ratio":26.5}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfuh1","c_root_id_B":"e8qeu33","created_at_utc_A":1540917582,"created_at_utc_B":1540916789,"score_A":43,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"Your interpretation is part of gender's social construction. It only exists because of how gender has been explained to you by people you trust. There are many interpretations. But, since you've said that no interpretations can be \"factual\" (do you mean objective?) your interpretation of gender as a dichotomy can be no more true than that of a person who calls it a spectrum.  Taking it a step further, when you say gender is a \"spectrum,\" you're semantically including everyone's personal interpretation of their own gender. When you say gender is strictly dichotomous, you're imposing that binary on other people, and depending on how you interpret the binary, that will involve false assumptions when it comes to people who challenge the binary.  So while neither statement can be objectively true, the statement \"gender is a dichotomy\" is more flawed because it's a more specific falsehood.","human_ref_B":"There can still be facts associated with things that are socially constructed.  The borders between nations are socially constructed, but it's still a fact that I'm currently in the US. Money is a social construct, but I still have $X in my bank account. Etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":793.0,"score_ratio":1.4333333333}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfuh1","c_root_id_B":"e8qfudd","created_at_utc_A":1540917582,"created_at_utc_B":1540917580,"score_A":43,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Your interpretation is part of gender's social construction. It only exists because of how gender has been explained to you by people you trust. There are many interpretations. But, since you've said that no interpretations can be \"factual\" (do you mean objective?) your interpretation of gender as a dichotomy can be no more true than that of a person who calls it a spectrum.  Taking it a step further, when you say gender is a \"spectrum,\" you're semantically including everyone's personal interpretation of their own gender. When you say gender is strictly dichotomous, you're imposing that binary on other people, and depending on how you interpret the binary, that will involve false assumptions when it comes to people who challenge the binary.  So while neither statement can be objectively true, the statement \"gender is a dichotomy\" is more flawed because it's a more specific falsehood.","human_ref_B":"You, individually, are not \"society\". Only collectively does a large group of people become a \"society\", and only such a group can create \"social constructs\" (although the exact size is a flexible concept, it certainly doesn't extend to one person).   So, no, you can't just say \"under my social construct, gender is dichotomous\".  However, it is true that a dichotomous gender construct is held by the majority of people...   But the whole point of the current gender movement, such as it is, is in alignment with your view: the majority dichotomous social construct of gender is arbitrary and not factual, and therefore no one should be required to fit into that mold.  >and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.  Also, I'm not sure where you get the idea that social constructs are just so, and no debate about them is possible. The whole point of social constructs is that they are created and shaped by conversation and debate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2.0,"score_ratio":2.0476190476}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfhcw","c_root_id_B":"e8qfuh1","created_at_utc_A":1540917299,"created_at_utc_B":1540917582,"score_A":10,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"There's  a bit of an empistemological issue with this kind of view, which is that everything which we think of as \"factual\" is also a shared assumption.  That kind of stuff comes up in the \"we're living in a simulation\" claims that had a rash of popularity recently, but goes back at least as far as the allegory of the cave.  So, if you want to see people make arguments about how something is \"factual\" rather than \"shared assumption\" you'll have to provide some more specific guidelines about how you want to distinguish fact from shared assumption.  Now, you can't categorically eliminate \"all but one\" scheme for gender, but there are certainly people with particular ideas about gender that don't match up with falsifiable observations.  For example, there's the people who claim that there's no difference between men and women's brains or that it's impossible to distinguish male from female human tissue with a microscope.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Barr_body","human_ref_B":"Your interpretation is part of gender's social construction. It only exists because of how gender has been explained to you by people you trust. There are many interpretations. But, since you've said that no interpretations can be \"factual\" (do you mean objective?) your interpretation of gender as a dichotomy can be no more true than that of a person who calls it a spectrum.  Taking it a step further, when you say gender is a \"spectrum,\" you're semantically including everyone's personal interpretation of their own gender. When you say gender is strictly dichotomous, you're imposing that binary on other people, and depending on how you interpret the binary, that will involve false assumptions when it comes to people who challenge the binary.  So while neither statement can be objectively true, the statement \"gender is a dichotomy\" is more flawed because it's a more specific falsehood.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":283.0,"score_ratio":4.3}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qeok0","c_root_id_B":"e8qfuh1","created_at_utc_A":1540916668,"created_at_utc_B":1540917582,"score_A":9,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"\"Money\" is a social construct.  Do you think we can't make any factual interpretation of money.","human_ref_B":"Your interpretation is part of gender's social construction. It only exists because of how gender has been explained to you by people you trust. There are many interpretations. But, since you've said that no interpretations can be \"factual\" (do you mean objective?) your interpretation of gender as a dichotomy can be no more true than that of a person who calls it a spectrum.  Taking it a step further, when you say gender is a \"spectrum,\" you're semantically including everyone's personal interpretation of their own gender. When you say gender is strictly dichotomous, you're imposing that binary on other people, and depending on how you interpret the binary, that will involve false assumptions when it comes to people who challenge the binary.  So while neither statement can be objectively true, the statement \"gender is a dichotomy\" is more flawed because it's a more specific falsehood.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":914.0,"score_ratio":4.7777777778}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfuh1","c_root_id_B":"e8qfmkv","created_at_utc_A":1540917582,"created_at_utc_B":1540917412,"score_A":43,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Your interpretation is part of gender's social construction. It only exists because of how gender has been explained to you by people you trust. There are many interpretations. But, since you've said that no interpretations can be \"factual\" (do you mean objective?) your interpretation of gender as a dichotomy can be no more true than that of a person who calls it a spectrum.  Taking it a step further, when you say gender is a \"spectrum,\" you're semantically including everyone's personal interpretation of their own gender. When you say gender is strictly dichotomous, you're imposing that binary on other people, and depending on how you interpret the binary, that will involve false assumptions when it comes to people who challenge the binary.  So while neither statement can be objectively true, the statement \"gender is a dichotomy\" is more flawed because it's a more specific falsehood.","human_ref_B":"When someone says that \"gender is a social construct,\" they are referring to **social constructionism**, which posits that meaning is created through social interaction across space and time. For gender, this means that what is seen as *masculine* or *feminine* changes based on the historical and political context. Gender as a social construct means that people are *socialized* to accept that certain things are \"inherently\" gendered, such as clothing, behaviors, emotions, careers, or colors. What is viewed as \"natural and normal\" for gendered people changes based on when and where you look.   &#x200B;  The theory of social constructionism only defines **identity** as a matter of shared meaning, but it doesn't define the parameters for that identity. So when you give the examples of \"spectrum vs. dichotomous,\" I don't feel like it accurately captures the meaning from a sociological viewpoint.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":170.0,"score_ratio":10.75}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qeok0","c_root_id_B":"e8qeu33","created_at_utc_A":1540916668,"created_at_utc_B":1540916789,"score_A":9,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"\"Money\" is a social construct.  Do you think we can't make any factual interpretation of money.","human_ref_B":"There can still be facts associated with things that are socially constructed.  The borders between nations are socially constructed, but it's still a fact that I'm currently in the US. Money is a social construct, but I still have $X in my bank account. Etc.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":121.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfhcw","c_root_id_B":"e8qfudd","created_at_utc_A":1540917299,"created_at_utc_B":1540917580,"score_A":10,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"There's  a bit of an empistemological issue with this kind of view, which is that everything which we think of as \"factual\" is also a shared assumption.  That kind of stuff comes up in the \"we're living in a simulation\" claims that had a rash of popularity recently, but goes back at least as far as the allegory of the cave.  So, if you want to see people make arguments about how something is \"factual\" rather than \"shared assumption\" you'll have to provide some more specific guidelines about how you want to distinguish fact from shared assumption.  Now, you can't categorically eliminate \"all but one\" scheme for gender, but there are certainly people with particular ideas about gender that don't match up with falsifiable observations.  For example, there's the people who claim that there's no difference between men and women's brains or that it's impossible to distinguish male from female human tissue with a microscope.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Barr_body","human_ref_B":"You, individually, are not \"society\". Only collectively does a large group of people become a \"society\", and only such a group can create \"social constructs\" (although the exact size is a flexible concept, it certainly doesn't extend to one person).   So, no, you can't just say \"under my social construct, gender is dichotomous\".  However, it is true that a dichotomous gender construct is held by the majority of people...   But the whole point of the current gender movement, such as it is, is in alignment with your view: the majority dichotomous social construct of gender is arbitrary and not factual, and therefore no one should be required to fit into that mold.  >and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.  Also, I'm not sure where you get the idea that social constructs are just so, and no debate about them is possible. The whole point of social constructs is that they are created and shaped by conversation and debate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":281.0,"score_ratio":2.1}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qeok0","c_root_id_B":"e8qfudd","created_at_utc_A":1540916668,"created_at_utc_B":1540917580,"score_A":9,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"\"Money\" is a social construct.  Do you think we can't make any factual interpretation of money.","human_ref_B":"You, individually, are not \"society\". Only collectively does a large group of people become a \"society\", and only such a group can create \"social constructs\" (although the exact size is a flexible concept, it certainly doesn't extend to one person).   So, no, you can't just say \"under my social construct, gender is dichotomous\".  However, it is true that a dichotomous gender construct is held by the majority of people...   But the whole point of the current gender movement, such as it is, is in alignment with your view: the majority dichotomous social construct of gender is arbitrary and not factual, and therefore no one should be required to fit into that mold.  >and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.  Also, I'm not sure where you get the idea that social constructs are just so, and no debate about them is possible. The whole point of social constructs is that they are created and shaped by conversation and debate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":912.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfmkv","c_root_id_B":"e8qfudd","created_at_utc_A":1540917412,"created_at_utc_B":1540917580,"score_A":4,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"When someone says that \"gender is a social construct,\" they are referring to **social constructionism**, which posits that meaning is created through social interaction across space and time. For gender, this means that what is seen as *masculine* or *feminine* changes based on the historical and political context. Gender as a social construct means that people are *socialized* to accept that certain things are \"inherently\" gendered, such as clothing, behaviors, emotions, careers, or colors. What is viewed as \"natural and normal\" for gendered people changes based on when and where you look.   &#x200B;  The theory of social constructionism only defines **identity** as a matter of shared meaning, but it doesn't define the parameters for that identity. So when you give the examples of \"spectrum vs. dichotomous,\" I don't feel like it accurately captures the meaning from a sociological viewpoint.","human_ref_B":"You, individually, are not \"society\". Only collectively does a large group of people become a \"society\", and only such a group can create \"social constructs\" (although the exact size is a flexible concept, it certainly doesn't extend to one person).   So, no, you can't just say \"under my social construct, gender is dichotomous\".  However, it is true that a dichotomous gender construct is held by the majority of people...   But the whole point of the current gender movement, such as it is, is in alignment with your view: the majority dichotomous social construct of gender is arbitrary and not factual, and therefore no one should be required to fit into that mold.  >and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.  Also, I'm not sure where you get the idea that social constructs are just so, and no debate about them is possible. The whole point of social constructs is that they are created and shaped by conversation and debate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":168.0,"score_ratio":5.25}
+{"post_id":"9spd5b","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: If gender is a social construct, then no interpretation of gender can be factual.  A social construct is a shared assumption about reality, not an evidence-based observation. Therefore, no one can be right or wrong on their opinion on gender. If someone comes to you and says \"gender is a spectrum\", all you would have to say is \"actually, under the social construct I operate under, gender is dichotomous,\" and that would be the end of the discussion since there is no objective way to judge these interpretations as true or untrue.   What could change my mind is: assuming gender *is* a social construct, any fact-based evidence that supports one interpretation of gender and no others.","c_root_id_A":"e8qfhcw","c_root_id_B":"e8qeok0","created_at_utc_A":1540917299,"created_at_utc_B":1540916668,"score_A":10,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"There's  a bit of an empistemological issue with this kind of view, which is that everything which we think of as \"factual\" is also a shared assumption.  That kind of stuff comes up in the \"we're living in a simulation\" claims that had a rash of popularity recently, but goes back at least as far as the allegory of the cave.  So, if you want to see people make arguments about how something is \"factual\" rather than \"shared assumption\" you'll have to provide some more specific guidelines about how you want to distinguish fact from shared assumption.  Now, you can't categorically eliminate \"all but one\" scheme for gender, but there are certainly people with particular ideas about gender that don't match up with falsifiable observations.  For example, there's the people who claim that there's no difference between men and women's brains or that it's impossible to distinguish male from female human tissue with a microscope.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Barr_body","human_ref_B":"\"Money\" is a social construct.  Do you think we can't make any factual interpretation of money.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":631.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"gtij97","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: The problem in America is the culture of hatred we have for everyone around us. American hate culture as I call it has completely taken over this county. These days we hate each other for everything. We hate democrats, we hate republicans we hate lbgtq members we hate people of religion. We hate atheists and we hate each other for being different races. The list goes on and on. What we are seeing with these riots is absolutely frustration about police brutality. But it is a symptom of a greater evil. We all hate each other far too much for anything and everything.   I think what happened to Mr Floyd is an absolute outrage and they all should rot in prison. I support the protesting and the sign. I even support and understand the anger. What I can\u2019t understand and support is the absolute animistic destruction of people\u2019s lives. People setting fires to small businesses that happen to be minority owned. How is that not a display of random rage and hatred ?  Your setting back the very person who is going through the same thing ?  I saw a rioter say that he and his friends were going to go to the suburbs and get violent. How are you justified to go to people\u2019s private homes, kill families and burn down houses. That isn\u2019t protesting or even rioting. That is being a terrorist filled with hatred and rage.   I have seen and read about people being beaten, hospitalized , shot etc. Where is the line going to be drawn here ?  Will you feel satisfied by breaking into an innocent families home and raping the youngest daughter then slaughtering the family like animals ?  I mean seriously. The sad part is people are sticking up for this behavior and claiming that \u201cwe did it when we had the Boston tea party\u201d. We poured tea out and harmed the red coats bottom line. We did not march into a British suburb and kill people in cold blood which is what is being threatened and what has seemingly happened at some of these riots. Your hatred does not give you a pass to murder, rape and harm children and innocent people. This comes down to everyone in this country being angry and full of hate , it is no longer about George Floyd.   American hate culture is killing this country and nothing will change until everyone stops being so hateful to one another. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"fsca2ey","c_root_id_B":"fscbahb","created_at_utc_A":1590866685,"created_at_utc_B":1590867154,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's because social media uses outrage marketing to get our attention.","human_ref_B":"In many cases the people rioting and the ones protesting are quite different groups.  Some people will simply go out looking for trouble at the times a protest is happening, to try to take advantage of the situation.  &#x200B;  If hating those who cause the problem is itself a problem, then how will you address that?  (ie the paradox of tolerance issue)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":469.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"gtij97","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: The problem in America is the culture of hatred we have for everyone around us. American hate culture as I call it has completely taken over this county. These days we hate each other for everything. We hate democrats, we hate republicans we hate lbgtq members we hate people of religion. We hate atheists and we hate each other for being different races. The list goes on and on. What we are seeing with these riots is absolutely frustration about police brutality. But it is a symptom of a greater evil. We all hate each other far too much for anything and everything.   I think what happened to Mr Floyd is an absolute outrage and they all should rot in prison. I support the protesting and the sign. I even support and understand the anger. What I can\u2019t understand and support is the absolute animistic destruction of people\u2019s lives. People setting fires to small businesses that happen to be minority owned. How is that not a display of random rage and hatred ?  Your setting back the very person who is going through the same thing ?  I saw a rioter say that he and his friends were going to go to the suburbs and get violent. How are you justified to go to people\u2019s private homes, kill families and burn down houses. That isn\u2019t protesting or even rioting. That is being a terrorist filled with hatred and rage.   I have seen and read about people being beaten, hospitalized , shot etc. Where is the line going to be drawn here ?  Will you feel satisfied by breaking into an innocent families home and raping the youngest daughter then slaughtering the family like animals ?  I mean seriously. The sad part is people are sticking up for this behavior and claiming that \u201cwe did it when we had the Boston tea party\u201d. We poured tea out and harmed the red coats bottom line. We did not march into a British suburb and kill people in cold blood which is what is being threatened and what has seemingly happened at some of these riots. Your hatred does not give you a pass to murder, rape and harm children and innocent people. This comes down to everyone in this country being angry and full of hate , it is no longer about George Floyd.   American hate culture is killing this country and nothing will change until everyone stops being so hateful to one another. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"fscmj8z","c_root_id_B":"fsca2ey","created_at_utc_A":1590871200,"created_at_utc_B":1590866685,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Just a tie but to chew on - are you aware that the majority of the tea tossed in the harbor during the Boston tea party was from colonist vessels? One not-yet-American owned 2\/3 of the ships and as far as I know it ruined him financially with damages over of million modern dollars - and that was long before insurance coverage lol.  America was built with violent rebellion that did the then proto-nation harm, I can\u2019t see how people are surprised that history repeats itself - one segment of the population hurting another until there is an indiscriminate act of rebellion - that\u2019s kinda more American than apple pie.","human_ref_B":"It's because social media uses outrage marketing to get our attention.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4515.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"gtij97","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: The problem in America is the culture of hatred we have for everyone around us. American hate culture as I call it has completely taken over this county. These days we hate each other for everything. We hate democrats, we hate republicans we hate lbgtq members we hate people of religion. We hate atheists and we hate each other for being different races. The list goes on and on. What we are seeing with these riots is absolutely frustration about police brutality. But it is a symptom of a greater evil. We all hate each other far too much for anything and everything.   I think what happened to Mr Floyd is an absolute outrage and they all should rot in prison. I support the protesting and the sign. I even support and understand the anger. What I can\u2019t understand and support is the absolute animistic destruction of people\u2019s lives. People setting fires to small businesses that happen to be minority owned. How is that not a display of random rage and hatred ?  Your setting back the very person who is going through the same thing ?  I saw a rioter say that he and his friends were going to go to the suburbs and get violent. How are you justified to go to people\u2019s private homes, kill families and burn down houses. That isn\u2019t protesting or even rioting. That is being a terrorist filled with hatred and rage.   I have seen and read about people being beaten, hospitalized , shot etc. Where is the line going to be drawn here ?  Will you feel satisfied by breaking into an innocent families home and raping the youngest daughter then slaughtering the family like animals ?  I mean seriously. The sad part is people are sticking up for this behavior and claiming that \u201cwe did it when we had the Boston tea party\u201d. We poured tea out and harmed the red coats bottom line. We did not march into a British suburb and kill people in cold blood which is what is being threatened and what has seemingly happened at some of these riots. Your hatred does not give you a pass to murder, rape and harm children and innocent people. This comes down to everyone in this country being angry and full of hate , it is no longer about George Floyd.   American hate culture is killing this country and nothing will change until everyone stops being so hateful to one another. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"fscle4a","c_root_id_B":"fscmj8z","created_at_utc_A":1590870775,"created_at_utc_B":1590871200,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Do you and everyone you know hate everyone? Because I don\u2019t hate everyone. All my neighbors and peers don\u2019t hate everyone. So it\u2019s hard for me to understand \u201chate culture has completely taken over the country\u201d it\u2019s very sad to hear. May I ask where your from that it\u2019s running so rampant?","human_ref_B":"Just a tie but to chew on - are you aware that the majority of the tea tossed in the harbor during the Boston tea party was from colonist vessels? One not-yet-American owned 2\/3 of the ships and as far as I know it ruined him financially with damages over of million modern dollars - and that was long before insurance coverage lol.  America was built with violent rebellion that did the then proto-nation harm, I can\u2019t see how people are surprised that history repeats itself - one segment of the population hurting another until there is an indiscriminate act of rebellion - that\u2019s kinda more American than apple pie.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":425.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"avucfz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: anti-quantitative biases are pervasive in the humanities and are based on a straw-man conception of quantitative methods For context, I'm in the humanities but do quantitative research in that area (applied computational linguistics). I'm trying to gauge how representative my experience of how quantitative methods are generally viewed by traditional humanities scholars is.  Basically, it seems like there is a general distaste for quantitative methods, stemming from a few sources.   First, quantitative methods are aligned with capitalism, patriarchy, and are overhyped by zelous quants who are mostly men. I can understand an association between power and quantification - it's very useful on many levels, so it's not surprising that those in power use it. But I don't see that as a barrier to using quantification for other goals and interests. In other words, an association between quantification and power is an accident of history, not something essential to quantification itself.  Second, quantitative methods have limited applicability to humanistic goals and questions. I agree it has limits. But I feel like I encounter assertions about these limits that don't make sense. Like someone saying \"I don't know how to measure fear\" ignoring the immense amount of cognitive science on measurement and conceptualization of affect. Or, statements that quantitative methods can't be intersectional because they must treat variables (like race and sexual orientation) as independent - which is just plain wrong. It's trivial to run two models with y = f(x) + f(z) and y = f(x, z) and test which model is better.   Or, legitimate limitations of a quantitative method are treated as insurmountable. Examples I've seen include peopling acting as if time series analysis doesn't exist, mixed-models don't exist, or non-linear models don't exist. Basically outright ignorance of how flexible modern statistical methods are leads to a fatalistic attitude towards the capabilities of quantitative methods.  Likewise, quantitative researchers are believed to be less thoughtful about their methods than they really are. Basically ignoring how much scientists think deeply about underlying issues in interpreting and presenting data, and never acknowledging perspectives like this: https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http:\/\/www.stat.columbia.edu\/~gelman\/research\/published\/gelman_hennig_full_discussion.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi8gIy-hN_gAhVFYKwKHVyRAt0QFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3Oe2f-yaRLIEQ-LI0s4sof   Now, I know there are plenty of dudebros who wield the word \"objectivity\" like a verbal cudgel in debates - but these guys are your average internet commenter, and don't represent the depth to which my quant colleagues understand their methods.  My perception is that these sorts of ignorant anti-quantitative attitudes are widespread. I'm hoping I'm wrong and my view is distorted by either my biases or the pecularities of my experience. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"ehhte3o","c_root_id_B":"ehht2lj","created_at_utc_A":1551380202,"created_at_utc_B":1551380008,"score_A":10,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Quantitative models are only as good as the assumptions that they are built on. That means they are vulnerable to the same problems as qualitative methods. But once you present quantitative figures, they assume an air of credibility. It's basically money laundering for ideas. At least qualitative analyses are upfront about their limits.  This isn't really an issue in academic settings because people are more likely to look at the methods. But in a clickbait and headline driven world, most people don't bother. A lie can get around the world before the truth has time to put on it's pants.  A truly effective quantitative model would be amazing, but human limits make them impossible. The world is outrageously complex, and trying to derive reproducible truth out of simplified models is an overwhelming challange. It's like in the show CSI where they used to say \"enhance\" and increase the resolution of low definition security camera tapes. That's impossible in real life. If you use a simple model, you can't extrapolate it to real life.   The only reason why they work in the hard sciences is because physics is a lot less complicated than the humanities. For example, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same everywhere in the universe. Meanwhile, two identical twins sitting next to each other watching the same movie at the same time might have completely different thoughts floating around in their heads.  The standard to convince scholars to take quantitative analysis in the social sciences seriously is pretty low. To alleviate skepticism, take a quantitative model and use it to make predictions that come true. Math and physics can do that. Show that you get reproducible results. All hard sciences can do that.  It doesn't need to be causation. Correlation works too, and is often used in the medical sciences. But quantitative reserach in the humanities needs to meet the same standard that quantitative reserach has to meet in any other field.  As a final point, don't mix up bias against quantitative analysis in the humanities with bias on the part of academics in the humanities. Academics in both the sciences and humanities take quantitative analysis very seriously in the sciences. And academics in both the sciences and humanities take quantitative analyses with a grain of salt when it's done in the humanities.","human_ref_B":"Positivism is inherently somewhat conservative not just as a historical coincidence. Quantitative studies are not. That's what I believe and what the general consensus was that was found in most all of my professors. For the second point there are plenty of limits and issues with quantitarive studies in the humanities that should be taken into account when looking at quantitative research but you do acknowledge this in part. Certain schools of thought are overly dismissive of the quantitative but all in all in my studies (speaking as a student not a researcher) the vast majority of my professors whilst critical of positivistic outlooks on quantitative studies and critical of the inherent flaws of the system they are just as critical of the far more qualitative schools and the issues with qualitative studies. And in my experience on faculty meetings of our social and political (communication is not mentioned but they are there too) studies as a student representative it appears most of the researchers are far from dismissive of either type of methods. Now of course this is only my experience as a student and I can't speak of other universities or fellow researchers but in my university it seems just as respected as qualitative studies only mixed method studies seem to be held in slightly higher regard. Are you certain your perception of the fields opinion on quantitative studies isn't skewed by the fact that it is easier to pick up on and overrepresent negative opinions? Just brainstorming here on a possible other explanation... Well this is the best I can give you hope it helps sorry for the lack of enters issues with my phone hope you don't mind .","labels":1,"seconds_difference":194.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"avucfz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: anti-quantitative biases are pervasive in the humanities and are based on a straw-man conception of quantitative methods For context, I'm in the humanities but do quantitative research in that area (applied computational linguistics). I'm trying to gauge how representative my experience of how quantitative methods are generally viewed by traditional humanities scholars is.  Basically, it seems like there is a general distaste for quantitative methods, stemming from a few sources.   First, quantitative methods are aligned with capitalism, patriarchy, and are overhyped by zelous quants who are mostly men. I can understand an association between power and quantification - it's very useful on many levels, so it's not surprising that those in power use it. But I don't see that as a barrier to using quantification for other goals and interests. In other words, an association between quantification and power is an accident of history, not something essential to quantification itself.  Second, quantitative methods have limited applicability to humanistic goals and questions. I agree it has limits. But I feel like I encounter assertions about these limits that don't make sense. Like someone saying \"I don't know how to measure fear\" ignoring the immense amount of cognitive science on measurement and conceptualization of affect. Or, statements that quantitative methods can't be intersectional because they must treat variables (like race and sexual orientation) as independent - which is just plain wrong. It's trivial to run two models with y = f(x) + f(z) and y = f(x, z) and test which model is better.   Or, legitimate limitations of a quantitative method are treated as insurmountable. Examples I've seen include peopling acting as if time series analysis doesn't exist, mixed-models don't exist, or non-linear models don't exist. Basically outright ignorance of how flexible modern statistical methods are leads to a fatalistic attitude towards the capabilities of quantitative methods.  Likewise, quantitative researchers are believed to be less thoughtful about their methods than they really are. Basically ignoring how much scientists think deeply about underlying issues in interpreting and presenting data, and never acknowledging perspectives like this: https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http:\/\/www.stat.columbia.edu\/~gelman\/research\/published\/gelman_hennig_full_discussion.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi8gIy-hN_gAhVFYKwKHVyRAt0QFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3Oe2f-yaRLIEQ-LI0s4sof   Now, I know there are plenty of dudebros who wield the word \"objectivity\" like a verbal cudgel in debates - but these guys are your average internet commenter, and don't represent the depth to which my quant colleagues understand their methods.  My perception is that these sorts of ignorant anti-quantitative attitudes are widespread. I'm hoping I'm wrong and my view is distorted by either my biases or the pecularities of my experience. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"ehhukha","c_root_id_B":"ehht2lj","created_at_utc_A":1551380935,"created_at_utc_B":1551380008,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I'm a social scientist who's occasionally been asked by humanities people to help their work with quantitative methods.  I've noticed some of what you're saying, and I agree with some of it.  But there are legitimate concerns.  > First, quantitative methods are aligned with capitalism, patriarchy, and are overhyped by zelous quants who are mostly men.  > Like someone saying \"I don't know how to measure fear\" ignoring the immense amount of cognitive science on measurement and conceptualization of affect.   I think these are related, in practice.  There absolutely is a step in quant methods where you just have to a priori decide that a certain observable thing is a valid operationalization of the latent variable of interest.  And yeah, you can assess validity, so these decisions can be justified.  But they're never perfect, they're always imposed by the researcher, and you have to assume their generalizability.  There's problems with all three of these.  Also, a lot of this \"anti-quantitative bias\" is protective: it's fighting against the idea that *only* quant methods are valid in the humanities.  You may think this is jumping a few steps, but I think it's entirely justified.  Is it really so implausible that once people started using quant methods and it caught on, pretty soon they'd be scoffing at others: \"You're just making it up; we have numbers and proof, and you just have your feelings.\"  It's a short bridge between \"Quant methods are good\" and \"Quant methods are the only things that can be good.\"  And this isn't, per se, a reason to ban or hate quant methods.  But humanities people are some of the only ones with the philosophical perspective to actually USE those methods and to know what they can and can't do.  I see some of this resistance as trying to constantly remind people of the necessary humility.  Finally, a big, big problem is the learning curve if you want to do statistics right, particularly as a professional.  People who half understand stats are kinda dangerous to science, because they seize upon results as truth without really knowing what they mean.  And a lot of this is a desire for there to be a REAL ANSWER, and... there won't be, a lot of the time.  You're doing an exploratory factor analysis, and you ask someone who barely understands it how many factors to extract, and they'll go \"Aaaa, how many eigenvalues are above 1?!\" You ask an expert, and they'll shrug and be like, \"I dunno, what does your theory say?\"  And a FIELD that half-understands statistics is dangerous, too, for the same reasons.  And it's asking a lot of self-control to tell young humanities people, \"OK, learn these methods, but don't use them until you REALLY know them, including the underlying math.\"  Some of this resistance is forcing that self-control on the field as a whole.","human_ref_B":"Positivism is inherently somewhat conservative not just as a historical coincidence. Quantitative studies are not. That's what I believe and what the general consensus was that was found in most all of my professors. For the second point there are plenty of limits and issues with quantitarive studies in the humanities that should be taken into account when looking at quantitative research but you do acknowledge this in part. Certain schools of thought are overly dismissive of the quantitative but all in all in my studies (speaking as a student not a researcher) the vast majority of my professors whilst critical of positivistic outlooks on quantitative studies and critical of the inherent flaws of the system they are just as critical of the far more qualitative schools and the issues with qualitative studies. And in my experience on faculty meetings of our social and political (communication is not mentioned but they are there too) studies as a student representative it appears most of the researchers are far from dismissive of either type of methods. Now of course this is only my experience as a student and I can't speak of other universities or fellow researchers but in my university it seems just as respected as qualitative studies only mixed method studies seem to be held in slightly higher regard. Are you certain your perception of the fields opinion on quantitative studies isn't skewed by the fact that it is easier to pick up on and overrepresent negative opinions? Just brainstorming here on a possible other explanation... Well this is the best I can give you hope it helps sorry for the lack of enters issues with my phone hope you don't mind .","labels":1,"seconds_difference":927.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"avucfz","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: anti-quantitative biases are pervasive in the humanities and are based on a straw-man conception of quantitative methods For context, I'm in the humanities but do quantitative research in that area (applied computational linguistics). I'm trying to gauge how representative my experience of how quantitative methods are generally viewed by traditional humanities scholars is.  Basically, it seems like there is a general distaste for quantitative methods, stemming from a few sources.   First, quantitative methods are aligned with capitalism, patriarchy, and are overhyped by zelous quants who are mostly men. I can understand an association between power and quantification - it's very useful on many levels, so it's not surprising that those in power use it. But I don't see that as a barrier to using quantification for other goals and interests. In other words, an association between quantification and power is an accident of history, not something essential to quantification itself.  Second, quantitative methods have limited applicability to humanistic goals and questions. I agree it has limits. But I feel like I encounter assertions about these limits that don't make sense. Like someone saying \"I don't know how to measure fear\" ignoring the immense amount of cognitive science on measurement and conceptualization of affect. Or, statements that quantitative methods can't be intersectional because they must treat variables (like race and sexual orientation) as independent - which is just plain wrong. It's trivial to run two models with y = f(x) + f(z) and y = f(x, z) and test which model is better.   Or, legitimate limitations of a quantitative method are treated as insurmountable. Examples I've seen include peopling acting as if time series analysis doesn't exist, mixed-models don't exist, or non-linear models don't exist. Basically outright ignorance of how flexible modern statistical methods are leads to a fatalistic attitude towards the capabilities of quantitative methods.  Likewise, quantitative researchers are believed to be less thoughtful about their methods than they really are. Basically ignoring how much scientists think deeply about underlying issues in interpreting and presenting data, and never acknowledging perspectives like this: https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http:\/\/www.stat.columbia.edu\/~gelman\/research\/published\/gelman_hennig_full_discussion.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi8gIy-hN_gAhVFYKwKHVyRAt0QFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3Oe2f-yaRLIEQ-LI0s4sof   Now, I know there are plenty of dudebros who wield the word \"objectivity\" like a verbal cudgel in debates - but these guys are your average internet commenter, and don't represent the depth to which my quant colleagues understand their methods.  My perception is that these sorts of ignorant anti-quantitative attitudes are widespread. I'm hoping I'm wrong and my view is distorted by either my biases or the pecularities of my experience. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"ehhx1c9","c_root_id_B":"ehi7cqe","created_at_utc_A":1551382434,"created_at_utc_B":1551388861,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Are you sure that the biases are \"based on a straw-man conception of quantitative methods\" rather than being driven by wishful or motivated thinking?","human_ref_B":"As someone else in the quant and methodology stream of psychology, we have the opposite problem. Quant is the idol we bow before and getting a qualitative study published is hard. You face a lot of backlash. This wasn't always the case though. I'm currently doing a project where we look through journals every 5 years back to their inception and what you find is that qualitative methods used to be much more common. But a movement took place around the turn of the century to take psychology out of the philosophy.humanities and into the sciences and the main tool of that was quant. If we could put numbers and a methods\/results section into our papers we could be a big boy science. Nowadays there's a real problem in our field that even if qualitative would make more sense for what we're doing, we default to quant anyways. This is especially bad since statistical analysis is hard and easy to screw up. I read a paper recently that a common practice in ANOVAs can make the experimenter's p<.05 chance shoot up as high as 40%.   What I'm saying is, I don't blame the humanities for being wary of quant. They've seen the social sciences get swept up in them and basically abandon qualitative entirely. I think that humanities requiring very good justification to run a quant study makes sense.  Also, as for your \"I don't know how to measure fear\" point. None of those things you suggested let you objectively measure fear. You can measure brain activity when you scare someone, but brain activity is a messy variable. You can rely on self reports or physiological responses associated with fear but neither of those are actually direct fear measures, they're after the fact interpretations of an experience and physiological traits associated with arousal. Measuring \"fear\" is hard. You basically have to operationalize the term to mean something you CAN measure and say \"this is an acceptable proxy for fear for my purposes\". It's a common issue is psyc. As for intersectionality: that model wouldn't address gestalt issues. An emergent phenomena that occurs for black lesbians, but not black men, or gay men, or white lesbians or straight women wouldn't be easily caught in that sort of model system. Mathematical models of social systems are tricky, and studying humans already runs up against a lot of issues with the assumptions of NHST (no replacement sampling being the biggest one).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6427.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcyouti","c_root_id_B":"dcyoup2","created_at_utc_A":1485487609,"created_at_utc_B":1485487604,"score_A":20,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I feel like you changed your own view from the title to the body.  You can become a police officer if you agree with all the laws today, and then simply quit your job if something comes along you don't want to enforce. You could also choose to not enforce a certain law, turn a blind eye. There are many officers today who let people go with marijuana, for example.","human_ref_B":"Police officers aren't required by law to enforce all laws.  For example, I've gotten pulled over without getting a ticket.  Cops let j-walkers go all the time without even a warning in my city.  Should they quit their job because they aren't enforcing the laws?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5.0,"score_ratio":1.5384615385}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcyoup2","c_root_id_B":"dcyvzre","created_at_utc_A":1485487604,"created_at_utc_B":1485499565,"score_A":13,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Police officers aren't required by law to enforce all laws.  For example, I've gotten pulled over without getting a ticket.  Cops let j-walkers go all the time without even a warning in my city.  Should they quit their job because they aren't enforcing the laws?","human_ref_B":"First, you are ignoring officer discretion. Police have the power to use discretion in determining whether to enforce the law in many situations and arrest a person or to use some other form of enforcement. Every time police pull someone over for speeding but don't write them a ticket, they are using officer discretion. Discretion is able to be used at all levels of the law, from police and corrections officers to prosecutors to judges and jurors. It keeps the system from being bogged down and it allows them to selectively enforce laws which are minor offenses or outdated. For example, section 13A-12-1 of Alabama law prohibits having your store open if you do not call within one of the exceptions. However, this is clearly an outdated law and would be extremely unlikely to be enforced by any police.   Second, you are ignoring the spirit of the law. Many people within the criminal justice system follow the idea that when working in the law, one must enforce the spirit of the law, or what is intended with the placement of the law, rather than the letter of the law, or literal interpretation. For example, take 2907.03 of Ohio law.   > (A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:  > (2) The offender knows that the other person's ability to appraise the nature of or control the other person's own conduct is substantially impaired.  Now, we know what this means. Don't intoxicate someone to the point where their ability to make judgements are impaired and then have sex with them. This is a measure to prevent people from being sexually taken advantage of in such states. However, that doesn't mean you go around arresting every single person who has sex with a drunk person.   Look at 2907.06 as well.   > (A) No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more other persons to have sexual contact when any of the following applies:  > (1) The offender knows that the sexual contact is offensive to the other person, or one of the other persons, or is reckless in that regard.  So, basically, don't go around groping people who don't want to be groped. Simple, right? Well, does this mean we should arrest the guy who comes up behind his wife and grabs her breast, but because she is mad that he forgot to take the garbage out, pulls away? No, because there is a certain level of comfort they have there and it was something he probably figured he could do in the first place without issue.   (For anyone who might respond to that, I'm not going to debate you on the concepts of affirmative consent. Yeah, you need consent before doing this kind of stuff in many cases, but let's be reasonable here. Spouses and people in serious, sexual relationships rarely need to do so every single time. Obviously, a person should stop if it is unwanted, etc.)  The point is that police do not need to enforce every single law to the exact letter of the law in all cases. They are allowed to use their own discretion with regards to many crimes, including those of laws they do not agree with. They also, arguably, have a moral obligation not to enforce all laws in the most strict and literal sense of the laws. As such, a person can become a cop and stay on as a cop without violating their own moral codes or being morally reprehensible even if they disagree with some laws.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11961.0,"score_ratio":1.0769230769}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcyp9qb","c_root_id_B":"dcyvzre","created_at_utc_A":1485488178,"created_at_utc_B":1485499565,"score_A":6,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Name a single career that you can go your entire life in without doing something you morally disagree in","human_ref_B":"First, you are ignoring officer discretion. Police have the power to use discretion in determining whether to enforce the law in many situations and arrest a person or to use some other form of enforcement. Every time police pull someone over for speeding but don't write them a ticket, they are using officer discretion. Discretion is able to be used at all levels of the law, from police and corrections officers to prosecutors to judges and jurors. It keeps the system from being bogged down and it allows them to selectively enforce laws which are minor offenses or outdated. For example, section 13A-12-1 of Alabama law prohibits having your store open if you do not call within one of the exceptions. However, this is clearly an outdated law and would be extremely unlikely to be enforced by any police.   Second, you are ignoring the spirit of the law. Many people within the criminal justice system follow the idea that when working in the law, one must enforce the spirit of the law, or what is intended with the placement of the law, rather than the letter of the law, or literal interpretation. For example, take 2907.03 of Ohio law.   > (A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:  > (2) The offender knows that the other person's ability to appraise the nature of or control the other person's own conduct is substantially impaired.  Now, we know what this means. Don't intoxicate someone to the point where their ability to make judgements are impaired and then have sex with them. This is a measure to prevent people from being sexually taken advantage of in such states. However, that doesn't mean you go around arresting every single person who has sex with a drunk person.   Look at 2907.06 as well.   > (A) No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more other persons to have sexual contact when any of the following applies:  > (1) The offender knows that the sexual contact is offensive to the other person, or one of the other persons, or is reckless in that regard.  So, basically, don't go around groping people who don't want to be groped. Simple, right? Well, does this mean we should arrest the guy who comes up behind his wife and grabs her breast, but because she is mad that he forgot to take the garbage out, pulls away? No, because there is a certain level of comfort they have there and it was something he probably figured he could do in the first place without issue.   (For anyone who might respond to that, I'm not going to debate you on the concepts of affirmative consent. Yeah, you need consent before doing this kind of stuff in many cases, but let's be reasonable here. Spouses and people in serious, sexual relationships rarely need to do so every single time. Obviously, a person should stop if it is unwanted, etc.)  The point is that police do not need to enforce every single law to the exact letter of the law in all cases. They are allowed to use their own discretion with regards to many crimes, including those of laws they do not agree with. They also, arguably, have a moral obligation not to enforce all laws in the most strict and literal sense of the laws. As such, a person can become a cop and stay on as a cop without violating their own moral codes or being morally reprehensible even if they disagree with some laws.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11387.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcyrxg6","c_root_id_B":"dcyvzre","created_at_utc_A":1485492074,"created_at_utc_B":1485499565,"score_A":3,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"What a law says does not always match what a law means.  Imagine you are a police officer in a town with a curfew. You find a teenager who got into a fight with their parents sitting in a park crying.  If police are meant to only enforce the letter of the law, they must arrest this teenager and take them back to their parents who they just fought with.  If police are meant to enforce the spirit of the law, then they would make sure this teenager is safe before continuing on.  This is why police are given some level of discretion in what a person is charged with. They can let someone off with a warning who was speeding, if two people get into a barfight they can charge them with disturbing the peace and refuse to charge them with battery even though they are both guilty of battery, etc.  They aren't fully and completely enforcing the law in these situations, are these bad cops? I would argue that they are not because by their very interactions in these scenarios they have helped enforce the spirit of the law. The driver most likely won't be speeding as much as often, the two drunks probably won't get into any more fights, etc.  Of course there are some laws that come into play that police do not agree with, but they still have discretion.  It is unreasonable to expect police to not exhibit bias within their day-to-day application of the law. Which is why it isn't expected, and universally accepted that the police will use their personal judgement when applying the law.","human_ref_B":"First, you are ignoring officer discretion. Police have the power to use discretion in determining whether to enforce the law in many situations and arrest a person or to use some other form of enforcement. Every time police pull someone over for speeding but don't write them a ticket, they are using officer discretion. Discretion is able to be used at all levels of the law, from police and corrections officers to prosecutors to judges and jurors. It keeps the system from being bogged down and it allows them to selectively enforce laws which are minor offenses or outdated. For example, section 13A-12-1 of Alabama law prohibits having your store open if you do not call within one of the exceptions. However, this is clearly an outdated law and would be extremely unlikely to be enforced by any police.   Second, you are ignoring the spirit of the law. Many people within the criminal justice system follow the idea that when working in the law, one must enforce the spirit of the law, or what is intended with the placement of the law, rather than the letter of the law, or literal interpretation. For example, take 2907.03 of Ohio law.   > (A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:  > (2) The offender knows that the other person's ability to appraise the nature of or control the other person's own conduct is substantially impaired.  Now, we know what this means. Don't intoxicate someone to the point where their ability to make judgements are impaired and then have sex with them. This is a measure to prevent people from being sexually taken advantage of in such states. However, that doesn't mean you go around arresting every single person who has sex with a drunk person.   Look at 2907.06 as well.   > (A) No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more other persons to have sexual contact when any of the following applies:  > (1) The offender knows that the sexual contact is offensive to the other person, or one of the other persons, or is reckless in that regard.  So, basically, don't go around groping people who don't want to be groped. Simple, right? Well, does this mean we should arrest the guy who comes up behind his wife and grabs her breast, but because she is mad that he forgot to take the garbage out, pulls away? No, because there is a certain level of comfort they have there and it was something he probably figured he could do in the first place without issue.   (For anyone who might respond to that, I'm not going to debate you on the concepts of affirmative consent. Yeah, you need consent before doing this kind of stuff in many cases, but let's be reasonable here. Spouses and people in serious, sexual relationships rarely need to do so every single time. Obviously, a person should stop if it is unwanted, etc.)  The point is that police do not need to enforce every single law to the exact letter of the law in all cases. They are allowed to use their own discretion with regards to many crimes, including those of laws they do not agree with. They also, arguably, have a moral obligation not to enforce all laws in the most strict and literal sense of the laws. As such, a person can become a cop and stay on as a cop without violating their own moral codes or being morally reprehensible even if they disagree with some laws.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7491.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcyvzre","c_root_id_B":"dcytqm8","created_at_utc_A":1485499565,"created_at_utc_B":1485495114,"score_A":14,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"First, you are ignoring officer discretion. Police have the power to use discretion in determining whether to enforce the law in many situations and arrest a person or to use some other form of enforcement. Every time police pull someone over for speeding but don't write them a ticket, they are using officer discretion. Discretion is able to be used at all levels of the law, from police and corrections officers to prosecutors to judges and jurors. It keeps the system from being bogged down and it allows them to selectively enforce laws which are minor offenses or outdated. For example, section 13A-12-1 of Alabama law prohibits having your store open if you do not call within one of the exceptions. However, this is clearly an outdated law and would be extremely unlikely to be enforced by any police.   Second, you are ignoring the spirit of the law. Many people within the criminal justice system follow the idea that when working in the law, one must enforce the spirit of the law, or what is intended with the placement of the law, rather than the letter of the law, or literal interpretation. For example, take 2907.03 of Ohio law.   > (A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:  > (2) The offender knows that the other person's ability to appraise the nature of or control the other person's own conduct is substantially impaired.  Now, we know what this means. Don't intoxicate someone to the point where their ability to make judgements are impaired and then have sex with them. This is a measure to prevent people from being sexually taken advantage of in such states. However, that doesn't mean you go around arresting every single person who has sex with a drunk person.   Look at 2907.06 as well.   > (A) No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more other persons to have sexual contact when any of the following applies:  > (1) The offender knows that the sexual contact is offensive to the other person, or one of the other persons, or is reckless in that regard.  So, basically, don't go around groping people who don't want to be groped. Simple, right? Well, does this mean we should arrest the guy who comes up behind his wife and grabs her breast, but because she is mad that he forgot to take the garbage out, pulls away? No, because there is a certain level of comfort they have there and it was something he probably figured he could do in the first place without issue.   (For anyone who might respond to that, I'm not going to debate you on the concepts of affirmative consent. Yeah, you need consent before doing this kind of stuff in many cases, but let's be reasonable here. Spouses and people in serious, sexual relationships rarely need to do so every single time. Obviously, a person should stop if it is unwanted, etc.)  The point is that police do not need to enforce every single law to the exact letter of the law in all cases. They are allowed to use their own discretion with regards to many crimes, including those of laws they do not agree with. They also, arguably, have a moral obligation not to enforce all laws in the most strict and literal sense of the laws. As such, a person can become a cop and stay on as a cop without violating their own moral codes or being morally reprehensible even if they disagree with some laws.","human_ref_B":"There is a theory of moral role-based moral permissibility.   It goes like this.   If a jailer is absolutely sure a prisoner is innocent of the crime for which he is imprisoned, the jailer would have a moral imperative to release the prisoner.  However, if jailers are allowed to release prisoners because of what they think, then the system falls apart.   Since a world in which jailers will keep innocent prisoners is better than a world where jailers release prisoners they think are innocent, then it is morally permissible for a jailer to jail someone they think is innocent.  ___  Now there are more intricacies to the theory. If you find a problem with any of my statements please bring it up and I will try to expand. I tried to keep it brief and to the point.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4451.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcyueco","c_root_id_B":"dcyvzre","created_at_utc_A":1485496309,"created_at_utc_B":1485499565,"score_A":2,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"If everyone follows that advice, there'd be no police. With no police there'd be anarchy. Anarchy is worse than the occasional bad law. So it's better for people to be police.  There are a few problems with that argument. For one it doesn't address selective enforcement, but that has been addressed elsewhere and I think I can ignore it here. Also, if everyone was following that advice, then they're presumably not the sort of people that would be criminals. But it seems like a bad idea to only let potential criminals be police. Also, everyone acting in what they personally believe to be the most moral manner can still be worse than order. For example, maybe 99% of the population thinks there should be a bridge somewhere, but 1% think there should not, so they keep knocking it down. It would be better to get people to vote on what they prefer and then not worry about if it's a good idea on an individual basis.","human_ref_B":"First, you are ignoring officer discretion. Police have the power to use discretion in determining whether to enforce the law in many situations and arrest a person or to use some other form of enforcement. Every time police pull someone over for speeding but don't write them a ticket, they are using officer discretion. Discretion is able to be used at all levels of the law, from police and corrections officers to prosecutors to judges and jurors. It keeps the system from being bogged down and it allows them to selectively enforce laws which are minor offenses or outdated. For example, section 13A-12-1 of Alabama law prohibits having your store open if you do not call within one of the exceptions. However, this is clearly an outdated law and would be extremely unlikely to be enforced by any police.   Second, you are ignoring the spirit of the law. Many people within the criminal justice system follow the idea that when working in the law, one must enforce the spirit of the law, or what is intended with the placement of the law, rather than the letter of the law, or literal interpretation. For example, take 2907.03 of Ohio law.   > (A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:  > (2) The offender knows that the other person's ability to appraise the nature of or control the other person's own conduct is substantially impaired.  Now, we know what this means. Don't intoxicate someone to the point where their ability to make judgements are impaired and then have sex with them. This is a measure to prevent people from being sexually taken advantage of in such states. However, that doesn't mean you go around arresting every single person who has sex with a drunk person.   Look at 2907.06 as well.   > (A) No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more other persons to have sexual contact when any of the following applies:  > (1) The offender knows that the sexual contact is offensive to the other person, or one of the other persons, or is reckless in that regard.  So, basically, don't go around groping people who don't want to be groped. Simple, right? Well, does this mean we should arrest the guy who comes up behind his wife and grabs her breast, but because she is mad that he forgot to take the garbage out, pulls away? No, because there is a certain level of comfort they have there and it was something he probably figured he could do in the first place without issue.   (For anyone who might respond to that, I'm not going to debate you on the concepts of affirmative consent. Yeah, you need consent before doing this kind of stuff in many cases, but let's be reasonable here. Spouses and people in serious, sexual relationships rarely need to do so every single time. Obviously, a person should stop if it is unwanted, etc.)  The point is that police do not need to enforce every single law to the exact letter of the law in all cases. They are allowed to use their own discretion with regards to many crimes, including those of laws they do not agree with. They also, arguably, have a moral obligation not to enforce all laws in the most strict and literal sense of the laws. As such, a person can become a cop and stay on as a cop without violating their own moral codes or being morally reprehensible even if they disagree with some laws.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3256.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcytqm8","c_root_id_B":"dcz4jql","created_at_utc_A":1485495114,"created_at_utc_B":1485523014,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There is a theory of moral role-based moral permissibility.   It goes like this.   If a jailer is absolutely sure a prisoner is innocent of the crime for which he is imprisoned, the jailer would have a moral imperative to release the prisoner.  However, if jailers are allowed to release prisoners because of what they think, then the system falls apart.   Since a world in which jailers will keep innocent prisoners is better than a world where jailers release prisoners they think are innocent, then it is morally permissible for a jailer to jail someone they think is innocent.  ___  Now there are more intricacies to the theory. If you find a problem with any of my statements please bring it up and I will try to expand. I tried to keep it brief and to the point.","human_ref_B":"Perfect is the enemy of good.   If you try to keep the view of perfect \"morality\" or even the idea that you will never disagree with actions you have to take; you are either incredibly spoiled to have that luxury, or silly to think it will never come up.  Acting in good faith doesn't mean you always agree with everything that you have to do, but rather if you disagree you make it known in a way that will either change the method, or let you correct it.  >To keep the moral high ground  That's the problem with your argument. Life isn't about keeping a moral high ground. It's about living.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27900.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcyueco","c_root_id_B":"dcz4jql","created_at_utc_A":1485496309,"created_at_utc_B":1485523014,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If everyone follows that advice, there'd be no police. With no police there'd be anarchy. Anarchy is worse than the occasional bad law. So it's better for people to be police.  There are a few problems with that argument. For one it doesn't address selective enforcement, but that has been addressed elsewhere and I think I can ignore it here. Also, if everyone was following that advice, then they're presumably not the sort of people that would be criminals. But it seems like a bad idea to only let potential criminals be police. Also, everyone acting in what they personally believe to be the most moral manner can still be worse than order. For example, maybe 99% of the population thinks there should be a bridge somewhere, but 1% think there should not, so they keep knocking it down. It would be better to get people to vote on what they prefer and then not worry about if it's a good idea on an individual basis.","human_ref_B":"Perfect is the enemy of good.   If you try to keep the view of perfect \"morality\" or even the idea that you will never disagree with actions you have to take; you are either incredibly spoiled to have that luxury, or silly to think it will never come up.  Acting in good faith doesn't mean you always agree with everything that you have to do, but rather if you disagree you make it known in a way that will either change the method, or let you correct it.  >To keep the moral high ground  That's the problem with your argument. Life isn't about keeping a moral high ground. It's about living.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26705.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcz1o94","c_root_id_B":"dcz4jql","created_at_utc_A":1485516042,"created_at_utc_B":1485523014,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith.  Doing things in good faith doesn't mean having to personally agree with them. It just means that you're carrying them out fairly and honestly: in line with what the law says. As long as the officer's personal opinion doesn't keep her from carrying out her job in the way she's supposed to, she is still carrying it out *in good faith*.  An officer might disagree with the (moral) basis for having certain laws on the books, but also accept that the enforcement of laws is, while regrettable:  * Reasonable, since everyone knows that XYZ is illegal, everyone equally has the opportunity to avoid doing XYZ * Necessary to maintain \"higher\" moral principles (e.g. the principle that \"it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer\")  These won't cover all cases of officers with disagreements, but this means that your main claim is *not a necessary condition*.","human_ref_B":"Perfect is the enemy of good.   If you try to keep the view of perfect \"morality\" or even the idea that you will never disagree with actions you have to take; you are either incredibly spoiled to have that luxury, or silly to think it will never come up.  Acting in good faith doesn't mean you always agree with everything that you have to do, but rather if you disagree you make it known in a way that will either change the method, or let you correct it.  >To keep the moral high ground  That's the problem with your argument. Life isn't about keeping a moral high ground. It's about living.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6972.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dczhode","c_root_id_B":"dcytqm8","created_at_utc_A":1485539726,"created_at_utc_B":1485495114,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You seem to have an underlying assumption that one becomes morally reprehensible by doing something they don't fully believe in.  That definition is extremely limiting, totally disconnected from reality, and leaves no room for the subtleties of a situation.  Morals are guiding principles that help us make decisions, they are not the decision.  A person may do something contrary to her morality, but that does not make her amoral.  Without this flexibility, the whole concept collapses.  For the police officer, it's simply a matter of respecting society's values as well as your own.  The majority of the time we would hope those values were aligned. In some instances, society's values would take precedence and the individual chooses to act on behalf of society.  In others, the officer would exercise the discretion they are given to not enforce a law.  If a major, irreconcilable difference arises, the officer may at some point decide to take on a different role.","human_ref_B":"There is a theory of moral role-based moral permissibility.   It goes like this.   If a jailer is absolutely sure a prisoner is innocent of the crime for which he is imprisoned, the jailer would have a moral imperative to release the prisoner.  However, if jailers are allowed to release prisoners because of what they think, then the system falls apart.   Since a world in which jailers will keep innocent prisoners is better than a world where jailers release prisoners they think are innocent, then it is morally permissible for a jailer to jail someone they think is innocent.  ___  Now there are more intricacies to the theory. If you find a problem with any of my statements please bring it up and I will try to expand. I tried to keep it brief and to the point.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":44612.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dczhode","c_root_id_B":"dcyueco","created_at_utc_A":1485539726,"created_at_utc_B":1485496309,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You seem to have an underlying assumption that one becomes morally reprehensible by doing something they don't fully believe in.  That definition is extremely limiting, totally disconnected from reality, and leaves no room for the subtleties of a situation.  Morals are guiding principles that help us make decisions, they are not the decision.  A person may do something contrary to her morality, but that does not make her amoral.  Without this flexibility, the whole concept collapses.  For the police officer, it's simply a matter of respecting society's values as well as your own.  The majority of the time we would hope those values were aligned. In some instances, society's values would take precedence and the individual chooses to act on behalf of society.  In others, the officer would exercise the discretion they are given to not enforce a law.  If a major, irreconcilable difference arises, the officer may at some point decide to take on a different role.","human_ref_B":"If everyone follows that advice, there'd be no police. With no police there'd be anarchy. Anarchy is worse than the occasional bad law. So it's better for people to be police.  There are a few problems with that argument. For one it doesn't address selective enforcement, but that has been addressed elsewhere and I think I can ignore it here. Also, if everyone was following that advice, then they're presumably not the sort of people that would be criminals. But it seems like a bad idea to only let potential criminals be police. Also, everyone acting in what they personally believe to be the most moral manner can still be worse than order. For example, maybe 99% of the population thinks there should be a bridge somewhere, but 1% think there should not, so they keep knocking it down. It would be better to get people to vote on what they prefer and then not worry about if it's a good idea on an individual basis.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":43417.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcz1o94","c_root_id_B":"dczhode","created_at_utc_A":1485516042,"created_at_utc_B":1485539726,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith.  Doing things in good faith doesn't mean having to personally agree with them. It just means that you're carrying them out fairly and honestly: in line with what the law says. As long as the officer's personal opinion doesn't keep her from carrying out her job in the way she's supposed to, she is still carrying it out *in good faith*.  An officer might disagree with the (moral) basis for having certain laws on the books, but also accept that the enforcement of laws is, while regrettable:  * Reasonable, since everyone knows that XYZ is illegal, everyone equally has the opportunity to avoid doing XYZ * Necessary to maintain \"higher\" moral principles (e.g. the principle that \"it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer\")  These won't cover all cases of officers with disagreements, but this means that your main claim is *not a necessary condition*.","human_ref_B":"You seem to have an underlying assumption that one becomes morally reprehensible by doing something they don't fully believe in.  That definition is extremely limiting, totally disconnected from reality, and leaves no room for the subtleties of a situation.  Morals are guiding principles that help us make decisions, they are not the decision.  A person may do something contrary to her morality, but that does not make her amoral.  Without this flexibility, the whole concept collapses.  For the police officer, it's simply a matter of respecting society's values as well as your own.  The majority of the time we would hope those values were aligned. In some instances, society's values would take precedence and the individual chooses to act on behalf of society.  In others, the officer would exercise the discretion they are given to not enforce a law.  If a major, irreconcilable difference arises, the officer may at some point decide to take on a different role.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23684.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcz7u5r","c_root_id_B":"dczhode","created_at_utc_A":1485528180,"created_at_utc_B":1485539726,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't see any reason to think 1) is true. Wouldn't asserting 1) be akin to saying \"I believe that when my personal moral judgments and society's conflict, I'm right every time?\"","human_ref_B":"You seem to have an underlying assumption that one becomes morally reprehensible by doing something they don't fully believe in.  That definition is extremely limiting, totally disconnected from reality, and leaves no room for the subtleties of a situation.  Morals are guiding principles that help us make decisions, they are not the decision.  A person may do something contrary to her morality, but that does not make her amoral.  Without this flexibility, the whole concept collapses.  For the police officer, it's simply a matter of respecting society's values as well as your own.  The majority of the time we would hope those values were aligned. In some instances, society's values would take precedence and the individual chooses to act on behalf of society.  In others, the officer would exercise the discretion they are given to not enforce a law.  If a major, irreconcilable difference arises, the officer may at some point decide to take on a different role.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11546.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dcz92l3","c_root_id_B":"dczhode","created_at_utc_A":1485529803,"created_at_utc_B":1485539726,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Police officers have a lot of leeway in some areas - they can enforce or not as is their whim, particularly for minor infractions. Haven't you ever been pulled over and let off with a warning?  Most jobs have tasks that conflict with an employees morality to some degree. Being a police officer isn't much different there.   > 1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  You shouldn't apply to work for any company that engages in practices you don't agree with. Which sounds nice, but you'll starve.  There are plenty of overarching systems of morality that people participate in while disagreeing with minor portions (think every major religious tradition). Most adults don't engage in all-or-nothing morality.","human_ref_B":"You seem to have an underlying assumption that one becomes morally reprehensible by doing something they don't fully believe in.  That definition is extremely limiting, totally disconnected from reality, and leaves no room for the subtleties of a situation.  Morals are guiding principles that help us make decisions, they are not the decision.  A person may do something contrary to her morality, but that does not make her amoral.  Without this flexibility, the whole concept collapses.  For the police officer, it's simply a matter of respecting society's values as well as your own.  The majority of the time we would hope those values were aligned. In some instances, society's values would take precedence and the individual chooses to act on behalf of society.  In others, the officer would exercise the discretion they are given to not enforce a law.  If a major, irreconcilable difference arises, the officer may at some point decide to take on a different role.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9923.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"5qev2s","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over.  Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change.    TIMELINE  1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce.  2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them.  To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.","c_root_id_A":"dczhode","c_root_id_B":"dcz92pn","created_at_utc_A":1485539726,"created_at_utc_B":1485529807,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You seem to have an underlying assumption that one becomes morally reprehensible by doing something they don't fully believe in.  That definition is extremely limiting, totally disconnected from reality, and leaves no room for the subtleties of a situation.  Morals are guiding principles that help us make decisions, they are not the decision.  A person may do something contrary to her morality, but that does not make her amoral.  Without this flexibility, the whole concept collapses.  For the police officer, it's simply a matter of respecting society's values as well as your own.  The majority of the time we would hope those values were aligned. In some instances, society's values would take precedence and the individual chooses to act on behalf of society.  In others, the officer would exercise the discretion they are given to not enforce a law.  If a major, irreconcilable difference arises, the officer may at some point decide to take on a different role.","human_ref_B":"Living inflexibly by a personal moral code in the modern world it is practically impossible.  What job COULD you take?  \"It is immoral to be a teacher because government curriculum mandates do more to harm education than help.\"  \"It is immoral to be a doctor because you will need to make decisions to let others die.\"  \"It is immoral to work in retail because you'd be peddling clothes made in sweatshops.\"  How would you survive?  \"It is immoral to use motorized transport because it ruins the Earth via greenhouse gas emissions.\"  \"It is immoral to buy produce because illegal immigrant labor was exploited to harvest it.\"  \"It is immoral to be a US citizen because you must obey laws that you believe are unjust.\"  If everyone refused to police on moral grounds, chaos and murder would rapidly increase, and general suffering along with it. What good is a moral code if adhering to it causes mass suffering?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9919.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqpryg7","c_root_id_B":"hqpuuo0","created_at_utc_A":1640978105,"created_at_utc_B":1640979301,"score_A":20,"score_B":124,"human_ref_A":"Content creation on intentionally broad, because it doesn't have to be art.   Is journalism art, maybe, but it's definitely content.   Is cooking art, maybe, but it's definitely content.   Is political debate art, maybe, but it's definitely content.   Is critique of art, art in and of itself, maybe, but it's definitely content.   Is educational programing art, maybe, but it's definitely content.   While the definition of art is already broad, there are categories such as the above which people might reasonably see as \"not art\". Hence the usage of an even vaguer term, content.   If you want to argue the above are genuinely art, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I would argue that the majority of persons would disagree with you, and the persons making the content need to sell their products to the masses, even those that see it as distinct from art. To most people, journalists and teachers are distinct from artists. While it seems to me that these would tick your boxes for what counts as art, I don't think many would agree.","human_ref_B":"I think you\u2019re falling prey to what is called \u201csurvivorship bias.\u201d   Over the decades and centuries, only the \u201cgreat art\u201d (Mozart, Van Gogh, Dickens) has a lasting impact, while everything else is eventually forgotten. As a result, we tend to fallaciously believe that back in the day, *all* art was great, and there only Picassos and Virginia Woolfs\u2014when in truth, there were a million cheap, mediocre composers for every one Mozart, but we\u2019ve simply forgotten about all of them.  In truth, the majority of \u201cart\u201d over the centuries has been what one might call \u201ccontent creation\u201d\u2014cheap pamphlets, pulp magazines, gossip columns, commercial illustration, one hit wonders, bad sitcoms, etc. The thing is, we don\u2019t remember any of that any more than we will a specific YouTube makeup tutorial in a hundred years from now.  Just like we only remember less than 1% of artists and musicians from the 18th century, we will likely only remember 1% of artists from the 21st as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1196.0,"score_ratio":6.2}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqpuuo0","c_root_id_B":"hqprsej","created_at_utc_A":1640979301,"created_at_utc_B":1640978035,"score_A":124,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think you\u2019re falling prey to what is called \u201csurvivorship bias.\u201d   Over the decades and centuries, only the \u201cgreat art\u201d (Mozart, Van Gogh, Dickens) has a lasting impact, while everything else is eventually forgotten. As a result, we tend to fallaciously believe that back in the day, *all* art was great, and there only Picassos and Virginia Woolfs\u2014when in truth, there were a million cheap, mediocre composers for every one Mozart, but we\u2019ve simply forgotten about all of them.  In truth, the majority of \u201cart\u201d over the centuries has been what one might call \u201ccontent creation\u201d\u2014cheap pamphlets, pulp magazines, gossip columns, commercial illustration, one hit wonders, bad sitcoms, etc. The thing is, we don\u2019t remember any of that any more than we will a specific YouTube makeup tutorial in a hundred years from now.  Just like we only remember less than 1% of artists and musicians from the 18th century, we will likely only remember 1% of artists from the 21st as well.","human_ref_B":"This isn\u2019t new. Art vs commerce has been a battle waged since the beginnings of time. It existed when a myriad punk bands in the 90s \u201csold out\u201d and it existed when Joseph Gordon Levitt did \u201cGI Joe.\u201d It will always exist and it will never make art any less. In truth, art needs commerce to continue to thrive and vice versa. It is a balance as important (probably) as yin and yang. Content creation is just a new name for it. We have had commercials as long as and redditor has been on this Earth, content creation is no worse","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1266.0,"score_ratio":41.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqps9lj","c_root_id_B":"hqpuuo0","created_at_utc_A":1640978236,"created_at_utc_B":1640979301,"score_A":2,"score_B":124,"human_ref_A":"I feel this is like saying space travel was bad for artistic expression because some people who might have wanted to write about space will now work as an astronaut or an engineer or something.   And more to the point some of my favorite amateur writing has come from let's plays. Text and screenshot instead of video, but let's plays all the same.","human_ref_B":"I think you\u2019re falling prey to what is called \u201csurvivorship bias.\u201d   Over the decades and centuries, only the \u201cgreat art\u201d (Mozart, Van Gogh, Dickens) has a lasting impact, while everything else is eventually forgotten. As a result, we tend to fallaciously believe that back in the day, *all* art was great, and there only Picassos and Virginia Woolfs\u2014when in truth, there were a million cheap, mediocre composers for every one Mozart, but we\u2019ve simply forgotten about all of them.  In truth, the majority of \u201cart\u201d over the centuries has been what one might call \u201ccontent creation\u201d\u2014cheap pamphlets, pulp magazines, gossip columns, commercial illustration, one hit wonders, bad sitcoms, etc. The thing is, we don\u2019t remember any of that any more than we will a specific YouTube makeup tutorial in a hundred years from now.  Just like we only remember less than 1% of artists and musicians from the 18th century, we will likely only remember 1% of artists from the 21st as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1065.0,"score_ratio":62.0}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqpskc5","c_root_id_B":"hqpuuo0","created_at_utc_A":1640978360,"created_at_utc_B":1640979301,"score_A":2,"score_B":124,"human_ref_A":"I think there is obviously some truth here but I don\u2019t know if the net result is negative.  Biggest reason is that most low effort content is  not supposed to compete with or be art. it supposed to compete with non interactive forms of media and it\u2019s supposed to be simulated friendship. Major changes in how we socialize and consume media probably will impact the pursuit of art but they are still separate things.","human_ref_B":"I think you\u2019re falling prey to what is called \u201csurvivorship bias.\u201d   Over the decades and centuries, only the \u201cgreat art\u201d (Mozart, Van Gogh, Dickens) has a lasting impact, while everything else is eventually forgotten. As a result, we tend to fallaciously believe that back in the day, *all* art was great, and there only Picassos and Virginia Woolfs\u2014when in truth, there were a million cheap, mediocre composers for every one Mozart, but we\u2019ve simply forgotten about all of them.  In truth, the majority of \u201cart\u201d over the centuries has been what one might call \u201ccontent creation\u201d\u2014cheap pamphlets, pulp magazines, gossip columns, commercial illustration, one hit wonders, bad sitcoms, etc. The thing is, we don\u2019t remember any of that any more than we will a specific YouTube makeup tutorial in a hundred years from now.  Just like we only remember less than 1% of artists and musicians from the 18th century, we will likely only remember 1% of artists from the 21st as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":941.0,"score_ratio":62.0}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqpuuo0","c_root_id_B":"hqpst0q","created_at_utc_A":1640979301,"created_at_utc_B":1640978461,"score_A":124,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I think you\u2019re falling prey to what is called \u201csurvivorship bias.\u201d   Over the decades and centuries, only the \u201cgreat art\u201d (Mozart, Van Gogh, Dickens) has a lasting impact, while everything else is eventually forgotten. As a result, we tend to fallaciously believe that back in the day, *all* art was great, and there only Picassos and Virginia Woolfs\u2014when in truth, there were a million cheap, mediocre composers for every one Mozart, but we\u2019ve simply forgotten about all of them.  In truth, the majority of \u201cart\u201d over the centuries has been what one might call \u201ccontent creation\u201d\u2014cheap pamphlets, pulp magazines, gossip columns, commercial illustration, one hit wonders, bad sitcoms, etc. The thing is, we don\u2019t remember any of that any more than we will a specific YouTube makeup tutorial in a hundred years from now.  Just like we only remember less than 1% of artists and musicians from the 18th century, we will likely only remember 1% of artists from the 21st as well.","human_ref_B":"In the past, only the most skilled\/talented people could be artists. Today, we still have the same percentage of talented artists. But we also have a bunch more \"content creators.\" For example, if the population is 50 people, maybe 1 is a talented artist. 100% of the artists are true artists. Now say the population grows to 500 people. Now there are 10 good artists. But there are also 40 content creators. Only 20% of the creative people are true\/good artists. So it seems like there are fewer artists and less high quality work, but that's just a statistical fallacy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":840.0,"score_ratio":62.0}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqpryg7","c_root_id_B":"hqprsej","created_at_utc_A":1640978105,"created_at_utc_B":1640978035,"score_A":20,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Content creation on intentionally broad, because it doesn't have to be art.   Is journalism art, maybe, but it's definitely content.   Is cooking art, maybe, but it's definitely content.   Is political debate art, maybe, but it's definitely content.   Is critique of art, art in and of itself, maybe, but it's definitely content.   Is educational programing art, maybe, but it's definitely content.   While the definition of art is already broad, there are categories such as the above which people might reasonably see as \"not art\". Hence the usage of an even vaguer term, content.   If you want to argue the above are genuinely art, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I would argue that the majority of persons would disagree with you, and the persons making the content need to sell their products to the masses, even those that see it as distinct from art. To most people, journalists and teachers are distinct from artists. While it seems to me that these would tick your boxes for what counts as art, I don't think many would agree.","human_ref_B":"This isn\u2019t new. Art vs commerce has been a battle waged since the beginnings of time. It existed when a myriad punk bands in the 90s \u201csold out\u201d and it existed when Joseph Gordon Levitt did \u201cGI Joe.\u201d It will always exist and it will never make art any less. In truth, art needs commerce to continue to thrive and vice versa. It is a balance as important (probably) as yin and yang. Content creation is just a new name for it. We have had commercials as long as and redditor has been on this Earth, content creation is no worse","labels":1,"seconds_difference":70.0,"score_ratio":6.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqpwpxt","c_root_id_B":"hqqh84n","created_at_utc_A":1640980071,"created_at_utc_B":1640988906,"score_A":10,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I'd say this a missed point of blame. Art vs Making Money is the distinction, content creation is just an easier avenue to create money but the lack of art on it's own being profitable for a lot of artists is ultimately the real core of the problem.   Artists are often forced to go into advertising, or social media, or design as a career path simply because the money is there where it isn't in the art of creation on it's own. You can't divorce how an artist lives from their art, because one reinforces the other.   Not everyone gets to be a ConcernedApe, and make the game of their dream and have financial success doing it. A lot of artists with that same mindset were forced to be a cog in the wheel of a money making machine where the art is kind of sucked out of them.","human_ref_B":"This was an argument back in the mid-to-late 1800s with the proliferation of photography. Trained artists no longer had to spend countless hours crafting a painting to capture a historical event or a family portrait. Photos took far less time and training, and provided greater accuracy and detail than even the greatest painters could provide. However, photographs became quite plentiful. I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve seen family photo albums of meaningless \u201ccontent.\u201d Events you barely remember with faces who\u2019s names you\u2019ve forgotten. But, the art remained. Painters like Picasso, Pollock, Rothko, and Mondrian were able to delve into the abstract as artistic expression was freed from confines of realism. Then photography was challenged by video. As videos became more abundant, those who appreciated the art of photography and had the skill to capture a moment or environment, like Andes Adams, persisted. Today there is a lot of web based content which will end up on old forgotten servers somewhere. Nameless faces with outmoded ideals lost to the sands of time. Instead of focusing on the proliferation of web \u201ccontent\u201d to to the forms of media it\u2019s surpassing, at least in a technological sense. I would argue that with all this attention on social media, we\u2019ll see a resurgence of film and video games. Because content is starting to be regulated for accuracy and correctness, I think people in video games and movies will garner some freedom to explore more controversial topics, as people will likely want to escape from the over abundance of manufactured content and delve into more abstract forms of entertainment rooted in a more traditional form of media. You even see a lot of moving pictures in art museums these days, so it only stands to reason interactive, game-like art will be on the rise.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8835.0,"score_ratio":1.3}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqqh84n","c_root_id_B":"hqq284f","created_at_utc_A":1640988906,"created_at_utc_B":1640982378,"score_A":13,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This was an argument back in the mid-to-late 1800s with the proliferation of photography. Trained artists no longer had to spend countless hours crafting a painting to capture a historical event or a family portrait. Photos took far less time and training, and provided greater accuracy and detail than even the greatest painters could provide. However, photographs became quite plentiful. I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve seen family photo albums of meaningless \u201ccontent.\u201d Events you barely remember with faces who\u2019s names you\u2019ve forgotten. But, the art remained. Painters like Picasso, Pollock, Rothko, and Mondrian were able to delve into the abstract as artistic expression was freed from confines of realism. Then photography was challenged by video. As videos became more abundant, those who appreciated the art of photography and had the skill to capture a moment or environment, like Andes Adams, persisted. Today there is a lot of web based content which will end up on old forgotten servers somewhere. Nameless faces with outmoded ideals lost to the sands of time. Instead of focusing on the proliferation of web \u201ccontent\u201d to to the forms of media it\u2019s surpassing, at least in a technological sense. I would argue that with all this attention on social media, we\u2019ll see a resurgence of film and video games. Because content is starting to be regulated for accuracy and correctness, I think people in video games and movies will garner some freedom to explore more controversial topics, as people will likely want to escape from the over abundance of manufactured content and delve into more abstract forms of entertainment rooted in a more traditional form of media. You even see a lot of moving pictures in art museums these days, so it only stands to reason interactive, game-like art will be on the rise.","human_ref_B":"I would argue there is a much greater ability for people to become artists in modern times compared to before. The barrier to entry into art is ASTRONOMICALLLY lower today than it was even 150 years ago. There are also, more artforms today than there were 150 years ago. Now, someone can be an artist utilizing digital 3D space to create a VR experience showing people things that are physically impossible to do. You can be a director of a film and make that work of art. Or create a videogame and make that art. Also, access to supplies, if I wanted to paint in 1534, i had to be well off enough to send out and get paint supplies and easles or dedicate my entire life to that art form and pursuit. Also my points of reference and what I could learn from are SEVERELY limited compared to now. For example, I could pick up a history of painting and painting styles book today and learn more about art and styles and progressions in a couple days than Michelangelo learned in his entire life.   But also, art as a term, has a specific inclination and by and large makes a value statement about what it is. Where as content and content creation has much much lower expectations. It is something made. It does not try and say it is some fantastical special thing. It claims itself to be, just something that is there.   Artists are content creators. They make something, whether it be a play, a painting, or whathave you. They are creators of some kind of content. But not all content creators are or claim to be artists.   I know someone who does graphic design and clothes, he edits, modifies, reconstitutes, and remakes things constantly, he is fundamentally transformative on the material. but he will not call himself an artist and does not want to. Because he doesnt want the boojie title of artist as he only sees pretentious assholes call themselves artists.   There are more arnow than there were 100 years ago. That is an undeniable fact. It is just a matter of numbers and access at this point.   Also artistic quality is an extremely subjective thing. To the point of saying that it is degrading feels exceedingly hard to actually quantify. Is it degrading because lots of people can attempt to make art because it is cheap enough for them to or for it to be a hobby? So because they are not THE BEST but can still keep doing it because it is affordable to them and they enjoy it, they are bringing all artistic quality down because it is not perfect?   For example:  Water Color Painter X paints full time out of their studio apartment in Charleston North Carolina and sells them at a gallery nearby. The painter must produce works that people like so they get sold so that they can afford to pay their rent and get food. But their brushwork is fantastic and clean and they are able to bust out landscape water color paintings pretty quickly. So they just copy scenes around the area and they sell them. Water Color Painter A is a grandpa in Flagstaff Arizona. He is retired and took some water color classes at the community center. He really likes it. So he got some supplies and does it at home because he loves it and the feel of it and making something. His line work is spotty at best and it isnt really that clean or clear at times and he doesnt do a solid job with his colors. Mixing them improperly and maybe to much or to little when he wants it to be uniform color. But he does it for the piece itself, that is why he paints. He paints his family and loves it. He wants to share with people what he made because he is proud of it. Over a year he finished 2 paintings, one of his family in the backyard and one of his daughters and son at a table together. WCPX busted out 80 paintings in that time all of them of exceedingly higher quality and skill than WCPAs 2 paintings. With much less emotion or intent to affect the viewers and express emotion than WCPAs. So which of these 2 would be degrading artistic quality? The one whos quality of their work in the actual refinement of the piece is lesser but has more emotion and intent to evoke emotion in it. Or the one who has great refinement but has no intent to really evoke emotion in the viewer?   I would argue that content and content creation(creators) is a better term as it is not stating some value to it with its existence. It says, I make things. I can be a content creator if I am a comedian or a short story writer, as much as I am a content creator if I make wooden statues with a chisel or paint with acrylics, or someone who makes youtube videos. Because for example, say I am a clothes makers. And I have a youtube channel where I show the process of how I made a dress, I then also put that dress on my etsy page to sell, would calling me an artist feel like a weird term to use? Possibly. If you call me a content creator because my method of expression is not classically commonly seen as art still encompass what I do? Yes. Does it mean that the dresses that I make to try and accentuate someones figure while using modern stylings but the piece being evocative of what we know of 1650s noble clothing in eastern europe is NOT an expressive and creative endevor that holds, as you define it, \"artistic quality\"? hell no.  I also feel that part of this is limited by how you view art, what you view as art another may not. Which is its whole other discussion as you point out. So I dont feel that artistic quality is degrading, how we access art is definitely changing. It is now something made by the masses. Not the few capable of devoting their entire existence to it. Whoch feels MORE important to society for me. It makes art and content more reflective of society at large instead of being influence and controlled by a select few at the top.   This is probably just a lot of rambling at this point. So I am sorry about that. Hope this was able to change your mind in some way or expand how you look at art and content creation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6528.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqqh84n","c_root_id_B":"hqprsej","created_at_utc_A":1640988906,"created_at_utc_B":1640978035,"score_A":13,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This was an argument back in the mid-to-late 1800s with the proliferation of photography. Trained artists no longer had to spend countless hours crafting a painting to capture a historical event or a family portrait. Photos took far less time and training, and provided greater accuracy and detail than even the greatest painters could provide. However, photographs became quite plentiful. I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve seen family photo albums of meaningless \u201ccontent.\u201d Events you barely remember with faces who\u2019s names you\u2019ve forgotten. But, the art remained. Painters like Picasso, Pollock, Rothko, and Mondrian were able to delve into the abstract as artistic expression was freed from confines of realism. Then photography was challenged by video. As videos became more abundant, those who appreciated the art of photography and had the skill to capture a moment or environment, like Andes Adams, persisted. Today there is a lot of web based content which will end up on old forgotten servers somewhere. Nameless faces with outmoded ideals lost to the sands of time. Instead of focusing on the proliferation of web \u201ccontent\u201d to to the forms of media it\u2019s surpassing, at least in a technological sense. I would argue that with all this attention on social media, we\u2019ll see a resurgence of film and video games. Because content is starting to be regulated for accuracy and correctness, I think people in video games and movies will garner some freedom to explore more controversial topics, as people will likely want to escape from the over abundance of manufactured content and delve into more abstract forms of entertainment rooted in a more traditional form of media. You even see a lot of moving pictures in art museums these days, so it only stands to reason interactive, game-like art will be on the rise.","human_ref_B":"This isn\u2019t new. Art vs commerce has been a battle waged since the beginnings of time. It existed when a myriad punk bands in the 90s \u201csold out\u201d and it existed when Joseph Gordon Levitt did \u201cGI Joe.\u201d It will always exist and it will never make art any less. In truth, art needs commerce to continue to thrive and vice versa. It is a balance as important (probably) as yin and yang. Content creation is just a new name for it. We have had commercials as long as and redditor has been on this Earth, content creation is no worse","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10871.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqqh84n","c_root_id_B":"hqps9lj","created_at_utc_A":1640988906,"created_at_utc_B":1640978236,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This was an argument back in the mid-to-late 1800s with the proliferation of photography. Trained artists no longer had to spend countless hours crafting a painting to capture a historical event or a family portrait. Photos took far less time and training, and provided greater accuracy and detail than even the greatest painters could provide. However, photographs became quite plentiful. I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve seen family photo albums of meaningless \u201ccontent.\u201d Events you barely remember with faces who\u2019s names you\u2019ve forgotten. But, the art remained. Painters like Picasso, Pollock, Rothko, and Mondrian were able to delve into the abstract as artistic expression was freed from confines of realism. Then photography was challenged by video. As videos became more abundant, those who appreciated the art of photography and had the skill to capture a moment or environment, like Andes Adams, persisted. Today there is a lot of web based content which will end up on old forgotten servers somewhere. Nameless faces with outmoded ideals lost to the sands of time. Instead of focusing on the proliferation of web \u201ccontent\u201d to to the forms of media it\u2019s surpassing, at least in a technological sense. I would argue that with all this attention on social media, we\u2019ll see a resurgence of film and video games. Because content is starting to be regulated for accuracy and correctness, I think people in video games and movies will garner some freedom to explore more controversial topics, as people will likely want to escape from the over abundance of manufactured content and delve into more abstract forms of entertainment rooted in a more traditional form of media. You even see a lot of moving pictures in art museums these days, so it only stands to reason interactive, game-like art will be on the rise.","human_ref_B":"I feel this is like saying space travel was bad for artistic expression because some people who might have wanted to write about space will now work as an astronaut or an engineer or something.   And more to the point some of my favorite amateur writing has come from let's plays. Text and screenshot instead of video, but let's plays all the same.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10670.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqqh84n","c_root_id_B":"hqpskc5","created_at_utc_A":1640988906,"created_at_utc_B":1640978360,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This was an argument back in the mid-to-late 1800s with the proliferation of photography. Trained artists no longer had to spend countless hours crafting a painting to capture a historical event or a family portrait. Photos took far less time and training, and provided greater accuracy and detail than even the greatest painters could provide. However, photographs became quite plentiful. I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve seen family photo albums of meaningless \u201ccontent.\u201d Events you barely remember with faces who\u2019s names you\u2019ve forgotten. But, the art remained. Painters like Picasso, Pollock, Rothko, and Mondrian were able to delve into the abstract as artistic expression was freed from confines of realism. Then photography was challenged by video. As videos became more abundant, those who appreciated the art of photography and had the skill to capture a moment or environment, like Andes Adams, persisted. Today there is a lot of web based content which will end up on old forgotten servers somewhere. Nameless faces with outmoded ideals lost to the sands of time. Instead of focusing on the proliferation of web \u201ccontent\u201d to to the forms of media it\u2019s surpassing, at least in a technological sense. I would argue that with all this attention on social media, we\u2019ll see a resurgence of film and video games. Because content is starting to be regulated for accuracy and correctness, I think people in video games and movies will garner some freedom to explore more controversial topics, as people will likely want to escape from the over abundance of manufactured content and delve into more abstract forms of entertainment rooted in a more traditional form of media. You even see a lot of moving pictures in art museums these days, so it only stands to reason interactive, game-like art will be on the rise.","human_ref_B":"I think there is obviously some truth here but I don\u2019t know if the net result is negative.  Biggest reason is that most low effort content is  not supposed to compete with or be art. it supposed to compete with non interactive forms of media and it\u2019s supposed to be simulated friendship. Major changes in how we socialize and consume media probably will impact the pursuit of art but they are still separate things.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10546.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqqh84n","c_root_id_B":"hqpst0q","created_at_utc_A":1640988906,"created_at_utc_B":1640978461,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This was an argument back in the mid-to-late 1800s with the proliferation of photography. Trained artists no longer had to spend countless hours crafting a painting to capture a historical event or a family portrait. Photos took far less time and training, and provided greater accuracy and detail than even the greatest painters could provide. However, photographs became quite plentiful. I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve seen family photo albums of meaningless \u201ccontent.\u201d Events you barely remember with faces who\u2019s names you\u2019ve forgotten. But, the art remained. Painters like Picasso, Pollock, Rothko, and Mondrian were able to delve into the abstract as artistic expression was freed from confines of realism. Then photography was challenged by video. As videos became more abundant, those who appreciated the art of photography and had the skill to capture a moment or environment, like Andes Adams, persisted. Today there is a lot of web based content which will end up on old forgotten servers somewhere. Nameless faces with outmoded ideals lost to the sands of time. Instead of focusing on the proliferation of web \u201ccontent\u201d to to the forms of media it\u2019s surpassing, at least in a technological sense. I would argue that with all this attention on social media, we\u2019ll see a resurgence of film and video games. Because content is starting to be regulated for accuracy and correctness, I think people in video games and movies will garner some freedom to explore more controversial topics, as people will likely want to escape from the over abundance of manufactured content and delve into more abstract forms of entertainment rooted in a more traditional form of media. You even see a lot of moving pictures in art museums these days, so it only stands to reason interactive, game-like art will be on the rise.","human_ref_B":"In the past, only the most skilled\/talented people could be artists. Today, we still have the same percentage of talented artists. But we also have a bunch more \"content creators.\" For example, if the population is 50 people, maybe 1 is a talented artist. 100% of the artists are true artists. Now say the population grows to 500 people. Now there are 10 good artists. But there are also 40 content creators. Only 20% of the creative people are true\/good artists. So it seems like there are fewer artists and less high quality work, but that's just a statistical fallacy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10445.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqqh84n","c_root_id_B":"hqq14ep","created_at_utc_A":1640988906,"created_at_utc_B":1640981910,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This was an argument back in the mid-to-late 1800s with the proliferation of photography. Trained artists no longer had to spend countless hours crafting a painting to capture a historical event or a family portrait. Photos took far less time and training, and provided greater accuracy and detail than even the greatest painters could provide. However, photographs became quite plentiful. I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve seen family photo albums of meaningless \u201ccontent.\u201d Events you barely remember with faces who\u2019s names you\u2019ve forgotten. But, the art remained. Painters like Picasso, Pollock, Rothko, and Mondrian were able to delve into the abstract as artistic expression was freed from confines of realism. Then photography was challenged by video. As videos became more abundant, those who appreciated the art of photography and had the skill to capture a moment or environment, like Andes Adams, persisted. Today there is a lot of web based content which will end up on old forgotten servers somewhere. Nameless faces with outmoded ideals lost to the sands of time. Instead of focusing on the proliferation of web \u201ccontent\u201d to to the forms of media it\u2019s surpassing, at least in a technological sense. I would argue that with all this attention on social media, we\u2019ll see a resurgence of film and video games. Because content is starting to be regulated for accuracy and correctness, I think people in video games and movies will garner some freedom to explore more controversial topics, as people will likely want to escape from the over abundance of manufactured content and delve into more abstract forms of entertainment rooted in a more traditional form of media. You even see a lot of moving pictures in art museums these days, so it only stands to reason interactive, game-like art will be on the rise.","human_ref_B":"> I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for society or anything like that, they are just bad for artistic creation!  They're bad for people who use them poorly. To me it's similar to the argument surrounding something like alcohol and or weed. One could make a company that sells alcohol or weed, become successful, good for them. Someone could periodically use those substances, not necessarily bad there. Then you have people who abuse it, that's bad. It depends on the individual and the argument should more so be around \"How much responsibility can we expect society to sustain in general?\".   >If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  This doesn't have much to do with things like youtube (I'm a videographer), years ago it was extremely difficult to upload \"movie like\" quality images to the internet, things just become easier and movies have to step it up to compete. Now some guy named Troy can be stoned in his apartment and fly a drone the size of his hand to capture an image that would previously require a helicopter. The easier it becomes for your everyday person to create good images the more others have to step it up, so in a way it does contribute to better \"art\", but it's not because of platforms, it's because of tech.   >If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a positive impact on artistic value, eventually.  We're living in a time of a short window of opportunity, you can become wildly successful by showing people how to do basic things and display them on the internet. It's just about being able to see those things and put them together, the younger generation will know how to do this pretty easily. It will fizzle out as a \"skill\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6996.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqqh84n","c_root_id_B":"hqq2uwx","created_at_utc_A":1640988906,"created_at_utc_B":1640982654,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This was an argument back in the mid-to-late 1800s with the proliferation of photography. Trained artists no longer had to spend countless hours crafting a painting to capture a historical event or a family portrait. Photos took far less time and training, and provided greater accuracy and detail than even the greatest painters could provide. However, photographs became quite plentiful. I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve seen family photo albums of meaningless \u201ccontent.\u201d Events you barely remember with faces who\u2019s names you\u2019ve forgotten. But, the art remained. Painters like Picasso, Pollock, Rothko, and Mondrian were able to delve into the abstract as artistic expression was freed from confines of realism. Then photography was challenged by video. As videos became more abundant, those who appreciated the art of photography and had the skill to capture a moment or environment, like Andes Adams, persisted. Today there is a lot of web based content which will end up on old forgotten servers somewhere. Nameless faces with outmoded ideals lost to the sands of time. Instead of focusing on the proliferation of web \u201ccontent\u201d to to the forms of media it\u2019s surpassing, at least in a technological sense. I would argue that with all this attention on social media, we\u2019ll see a resurgence of film and video games. Because content is starting to be regulated for accuracy and correctness, I think people in video games and movies will garner some freedom to explore more controversial topics, as people will likely want to escape from the over abundance of manufactured content and delve into more abstract forms of entertainment rooted in a more traditional form of media. You even see a lot of moving pictures in art museums these days, so it only stands to reason interactive, game-like art will be on the rise.","human_ref_B":"Art and content creation have always been two facets of the same thing. Art of the sake of art in the public doesn't exist much. You have some public displays and some publicly funded museums but even then you need a grant. It's always been like this. Large scale art and collections of art have always been funded and organized by larger institutions.npt necessarily run by artists. We think of a lot of statues  and stuff as art but those were usually some kind of \"content\" created by a comissioned artist.   As well many classic works of art come from privelaged backgrounds. Stories like Van Gogh are rarer than they are common. Most rennaisance painters were rather rich and could afford to just paint all day.  The art we reflect upon in history isn't the same kind of art that artists make for the sake of art. Art for the sake of art should be done for the sake of art and for the sake of wanting to do it, not necessarily for recognition or appreciation. Art done specifically to try to sell is pretty much \"content\" by definition. It has and always will need to exist.   You almost can't have one without the others. People will always want comissioned art. Non-artists will always want to pay for artists work. Conversely get enough artists together and create enough art for any reasom and there may be some appreciation and effort to maintain that art for posterity for the sake of the art that arises from that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6252.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqprsej","c_root_id_B":"hqpwpxt","created_at_utc_A":1640978035,"created_at_utc_B":1640980071,"score_A":3,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"This isn\u2019t new. Art vs commerce has been a battle waged since the beginnings of time. It existed when a myriad punk bands in the 90s \u201csold out\u201d and it existed when Joseph Gordon Levitt did \u201cGI Joe.\u201d It will always exist and it will never make art any less. In truth, art needs commerce to continue to thrive and vice versa. It is a balance as important (probably) as yin and yang. Content creation is just a new name for it. We have had commercials as long as and redditor has been on this Earth, content creation is no worse","human_ref_B":"I'd say this a missed point of blame. Art vs Making Money is the distinction, content creation is just an easier avenue to create money but the lack of art on it's own being profitable for a lot of artists is ultimately the real core of the problem.   Artists are often forced to go into advertising, or social media, or design as a career path simply because the money is there where it isn't in the art of creation on it's own. You can't divorce how an artist lives from their art, because one reinforces the other.   Not everyone gets to be a ConcernedApe, and make the game of their dream and have financial success doing it. A lot of artists with that same mindset were forced to be a cog in the wheel of a money making machine where the art is kind of sucked out of them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2036.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqps9lj","c_root_id_B":"hqpwpxt","created_at_utc_A":1640978236,"created_at_utc_B":1640980071,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I feel this is like saying space travel was bad for artistic expression because some people who might have wanted to write about space will now work as an astronaut or an engineer or something.   And more to the point some of my favorite amateur writing has come from let's plays. Text and screenshot instead of video, but let's plays all the same.","human_ref_B":"I'd say this a missed point of blame. Art vs Making Money is the distinction, content creation is just an easier avenue to create money but the lack of art on it's own being profitable for a lot of artists is ultimately the real core of the problem.   Artists are often forced to go into advertising, or social media, or design as a career path simply because the money is there where it isn't in the art of creation on it's own. You can't divorce how an artist lives from their art, because one reinforces the other.   Not everyone gets to be a ConcernedApe, and make the game of their dream and have financial success doing it. A lot of artists with that same mindset were forced to be a cog in the wheel of a money making machine where the art is kind of sucked out of them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1835.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqpwpxt","c_root_id_B":"hqpskc5","created_at_utc_A":1640980071,"created_at_utc_B":1640978360,"score_A":10,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'd say this a missed point of blame. Art vs Making Money is the distinction, content creation is just an easier avenue to create money but the lack of art on it's own being profitable for a lot of artists is ultimately the real core of the problem.   Artists are often forced to go into advertising, or social media, or design as a career path simply because the money is there where it isn't in the art of creation on it's own. You can't divorce how an artist lives from their art, because one reinforces the other.   Not everyone gets to be a ConcernedApe, and make the game of their dream and have financial success doing it. A lot of artists with that same mindset were forced to be a cog in the wheel of a money making machine where the art is kind of sucked out of them.","human_ref_B":"I think there is obviously some truth here but I don\u2019t know if the net result is negative.  Biggest reason is that most low effort content is  not supposed to compete with or be art. it supposed to compete with non interactive forms of media and it\u2019s supposed to be simulated friendship. Major changes in how we socialize and consume media probably will impact the pursuit of art but they are still separate things.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1711.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqpst0q","c_root_id_B":"hqpwpxt","created_at_utc_A":1640978461,"created_at_utc_B":1640980071,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"In the past, only the most skilled\/talented people could be artists. Today, we still have the same percentage of talented artists. But we also have a bunch more \"content creators.\" For example, if the population is 50 people, maybe 1 is a talented artist. 100% of the artists are true artists. Now say the population grows to 500 people. Now there are 10 good artists. But there are also 40 content creators. Only 20% of the creative people are true\/good artists. So it seems like there are fewer artists and less high quality work, but that's just a statistical fallacy.","human_ref_B":"I'd say this a missed point of blame. Art vs Making Money is the distinction, content creation is just an easier avenue to create money but the lack of art on it's own being profitable for a lot of artists is ultimately the real core of the problem.   Artists are often forced to go into advertising, or social media, or design as a career path simply because the money is there where it isn't in the art of creation on it's own. You can't divorce how an artist lives from their art, because one reinforces the other.   Not everyone gets to be a ConcernedApe, and make the game of their dream and have financial success doing it. A lot of artists with that same mindset were forced to be a cog in the wheel of a money making machine where the art is kind of sucked out of them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1610.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqq284f","c_root_id_B":"hqprsej","created_at_utc_A":1640982378,"created_at_utc_B":1640978035,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I would argue there is a much greater ability for people to become artists in modern times compared to before. The barrier to entry into art is ASTRONOMICALLLY lower today than it was even 150 years ago. There are also, more artforms today than there were 150 years ago. Now, someone can be an artist utilizing digital 3D space to create a VR experience showing people things that are physically impossible to do. You can be a director of a film and make that work of art. Or create a videogame and make that art. Also, access to supplies, if I wanted to paint in 1534, i had to be well off enough to send out and get paint supplies and easles or dedicate my entire life to that art form and pursuit. Also my points of reference and what I could learn from are SEVERELY limited compared to now. For example, I could pick up a history of painting and painting styles book today and learn more about art and styles and progressions in a couple days than Michelangelo learned in his entire life.   But also, art as a term, has a specific inclination and by and large makes a value statement about what it is. Where as content and content creation has much much lower expectations. It is something made. It does not try and say it is some fantastical special thing. It claims itself to be, just something that is there.   Artists are content creators. They make something, whether it be a play, a painting, or whathave you. They are creators of some kind of content. But not all content creators are or claim to be artists.   I know someone who does graphic design and clothes, he edits, modifies, reconstitutes, and remakes things constantly, he is fundamentally transformative on the material. but he will not call himself an artist and does not want to. Because he doesnt want the boojie title of artist as he only sees pretentious assholes call themselves artists.   There are more arnow than there were 100 years ago. That is an undeniable fact. It is just a matter of numbers and access at this point.   Also artistic quality is an extremely subjective thing. To the point of saying that it is degrading feels exceedingly hard to actually quantify. Is it degrading because lots of people can attempt to make art because it is cheap enough for them to or for it to be a hobby? So because they are not THE BEST but can still keep doing it because it is affordable to them and they enjoy it, they are bringing all artistic quality down because it is not perfect?   For example:  Water Color Painter X paints full time out of their studio apartment in Charleston North Carolina and sells them at a gallery nearby. The painter must produce works that people like so they get sold so that they can afford to pay their rent and get food. But their brushwork is fantastic and clean and they are able to bust out landscape water color paintings pretty quickly. So they just copy scenes around the area and they sell them. Water Color Painter A is a grandpa in Flagstaff Arizona. He is retired and took some water color classes at the community center. He really likes it. So he got some supplies and does it at home because he loves it and the feel of it and making something. His line work is spotty at best and it isnt really that clean or clear at times and he doesnt do a solid job with his colors. Mixing them improperly and maybe to much or to little when he wants it to be uniform color. But he does it for the piece itself, that is why he paints. He paints his family and loves it. He wants to share with people what he made because he is proud of it. Over a year he finished 2 paintings, one of his family in the backyard and one of his daughters and son at a table together. WCPX busted out 80 paintings in that time all of them of exceedingly higher quality and skill than WCPAs 2 paintings. With much less emotion or intent to affect the viewers and express emotion than WCPAs. So which of these 2 would be degrading artistic quality? The one whos quality of their work in the actual refinement of the piece is lesser but has more emotion and intent to evoke emotion in it. Or the one who has great refinement but has no intent to really evoke emotion in the viewer?   I would argue that content and content creation(creators) is a better term as it is not stating some value to it with its existence. It says, I make things. I can be a content creator if I am a comedian or a short story writer, as much as I am a content creator if I make wooden statues with a chisel or paint with acrylics, or someone who makes youtube videos. Because for example, say I am a clothes makers. And I have a youtube channel where I show the process of how I made a dress, I then also put that dress on my etsy page to sell, would calling me an artist feel like a weird term to use? Possibly. If you call me a content creator because my method of expression is not classically commonly seen as art still encompass what I do? Yes. Does it mean that the dresses that I make to try and accentuate someones figure while using modern stylings but the piece being evocative of what we know of 1650s noble clothing in eastern europe is NOT an expressive and creative endevor that holds, as you define it, \"artistic quality\"? hell no.  I also feel that part of this is limited by how you view art, what you view as art another may not. Which is its whole other discussion as you point out. So I dont feel that artistic quality is degrading, how we access art is definitely changing. It is now something made by the masses. Not the few capable of devoting their entire existence to it. Whoch feels MORE important to society for me. It makes art and content more reflective of society at large instead of being influence and controlled by a select few at the top.   This is probably just a lot of rambling at this point. So I am sorry about that. Hope this was able to change your mind in some way or expand how you look at art and content creation.","human_ref_B":"This isn\u2019t new. Art vs commerce has been a battle waged since the beginnings of time. It existed when a myriad punk bands in the 90s \u201csold out\u201d and it existed when Joseph Gordon Levitt did \u201cGI Joe.\u201d It will always exist and it will never make art any less. In truth, art needs commerce to continue to thrive and vice versa. It is a balance as important (probably) as yin and yang. Content creation is just a new name for it. We have had commercials as long as and redditor has been on this Earth, content creation is no worse","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4343.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqq284f","c_root_id_B":"hqps9lj","created_at_utc_A":1640982378,"created_at_utc_B":1640978236,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I would argue there is a much greater ability for people to become artists in modern times compared to before. The barrier to entry into art is ASTRONOMICALLLY lower today than it was even 150 years ago. There are also, more artforms today than there were 150 years ago. Now, someone can be an artist utilizing digital 3D space to create a VR experience showing people things that are physically impossible to do. You can be a director of a film and make that work of art. Or create a videogame and make that art. Also, access to supplies, if I wanted to paint in 1534, i had to be well off enough to send out and get paint supplies and easles or dedicate my entire life to that art form and pursuit. Also my points of reference and what I could learn from are SEVERELY limited compared to now. For example, I could pick up a history of painting and painting styles book today and learn more about art and styles and progressions in a couple days than Michelangelo learned in his entire life.   But also, art as a term, has a specific inclination and by and large makes a value statement about what it is. Where as content and content creation has much much lower expectations. It is something made. It does not try and say it is some fantastical special thing. It claims itself to be, just something that is there.   Artists are content creators. They make something, whether it be a play, a painting, or whathave you. They are creators of some kind of content. But not all content creators are or claim to be artists.   I know someone who does graphic design and clothes, he edits, modifies, reconstitutes, and remakes things constantly, he is fundamentally transformative on the material. but he will not call himself an artist and does not want to. Because he doesnt want the boojie title of artist as he only sees pretentious assholes call themselves artists.   There are more arnow than there were 100 years ago. That is an undeniable fact. It is just a matter of numbers and access at this point.   Also artistic quality is an extremely subjective thing. To the point of saying that it is degrading feels exceedingly hard to actually quantify. Is it degrading because lots of people can attempt to make art because it is cheap enough for them to or for it to be a hobby? So because they are not THE BEST but can still keep doing it because it is affordable to them and they enjoy it, they are bringing all artistic quality down because it is not perfect?   For example:  Water Color Painter X paints full time out of their studio apartment in Charleston North Carolina and sells them at a gallery nearby. The painter must produce works that people like so they get sold so that they can afford to pay their rent and get food. But their brushwork is fantastic and clean and they are able to bust out landscape water color paintings pretty quickly. So they just copy scenes around the area and they sell them. Water Color Painter A is a grandpa in Flagstaff Arizona. He is retired and took some water color classes at the community center. He really likes it. So he got some supplies and does it at home because he loves it and the feel of it and making something. His line work is spotty at best and it isnt really that clean or clear at times and he doesnt do a solid job with his colors. Mixing them improperly and maybe to much or to little when he wants it to be uniform color. But he does it for the piece itself, that is why he paints. He paints his family and loves it. He wants to share with people what he made because he is proud of it. Over a year he finished 2 paintings, one of his family in the backyard and one of his daughters and son at a table together. WCPX busted out 80 paintings in that time all of them of exceedingly higher quality and skill than WCPAs 2 paintings. With much less emotion or intent to affect the viewers and express emotion than WCPAs. So which of these 2 would be degrading artistic quality? The one whos quality of their work in the actual refinement of the piece is lesser but has more emotion and intent to evoke emotion in it. Or the one who has great refinement but has no intent to really evoke emotion in the viewer?   I would argue that content and content creation(creators) is a better term as it is not stating some value to it with its existence. It says, I make things. I can be a content creator if I am a comedian or a short story writer, as much as I am a content creator if I make wooden statues with a chisel or paint with acrylics, or someone who makes youtube videos. Because for example, say I am a clothes makers. And I have a youtube channel where I show the process of how I made a dress, I then also put that dress on my etsy page to sell, would calling me an artist feel like a weird term to use? Possibly. If you call me a content creator because my method of expression is not classically commonly seen as art still encompass what I do? Yes. Does it mean that the dresses that I make to try and accentuate someones figure while using modern stylings but the piece being evocative of what we know of 1650s noble clothing in eastern europe is NOT an expressive and creative endevor that holds, as you define it, \"artistic quality\"? hell no.  I also feel that part of this is limited by how you view art, what you view as art another may not. Which is its whole other discussion as you point out. So I dont feel that artistic quality is degrading, how we access art is definitely changing. It is now something made by the masses. Not the few capable of devoting their entire existence to it. Whoch feels MORE important to society for me. It makes art and content more reflective of society at large instead of being influence and controlled by a select few at the top.   This is probably just a lot of rambling at this point. So I am sorry about that. Hope this was able to change your mind in some way or expand how you look at art and content creation.","human_ref_B":"I feel this is like saying space travel was bad for artistic expression because some people who might have wanted to write about space will now work as an astronaut or an engineer or something.   And more to the point some of my favorite amateur writing has come from let's plays. Text and screenshot instead of video, but let's plays all the same.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4142.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqpskc5","c_root_id_B":"hqq284f","created_at_utc_A":1640978360,"created_at_utc_B":1640982378,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think there is obviously some truth here but I don\u2019t know if the net result is negative.  Biggest reason is that most low effort content is  not supposed to compete with or be art. it supposed to compete with non interactive forms of media and it\u2019s supposed to be simulated friendship. Major changes in how we socialize and consume media probably will impact the pursuit of art but they are still separate things.","human_ref_B":"I would argue there is a much greater ability for people to become artists in modern times compared to before. The barrier to entry into art is ASTRONOMICALLLY lower today than it was even 150 years ago. There are also, more artforms today than there were 150 years ago. Now, someone can be an artist utilizing digital 3D space to create a VR experience showing people things that are physically impossible to do. You can be a director of a film and make that work of art. Or create a videogame and make that art. Also, access to supplies, if I wanted to paint in 1534, i had to be well off enough to send out and get paint supplies and easles or dedicate my entire life to that art form and pursuit. Also my points of reference and what I could learn from are SEVERELY limited compared to now. For example, I could pick up a history of painting and painting styles book today and learn more about art and styles and progressions in a couple days than Michelangelo learned in his entire life.   But also, art as a term, has a specific inclination and by and large makes a value statement about what it is. Where as content and content creation has much much lower expectations. It is something made. It does not try and say it is some fantastical special thing. It claims itself to be, just something that is there.   Artists are content creators. They make something, whether it be a play, a painting, or whathave you. They are creators of some kind of content. But not all content creators are or claim to be artists.   I know someone who does graphic design and clothes, he edits, modifies, reconstitutes, and remakes things constantly, he is fundamentally transformative on the material. but he will not call himself an artist and does not want to. Because he doesnt want the boojie title of artist as he only sees pretentious assholes call themselves artists.   There are more arnow than there were 100 years ago. That is an undeniable fact. It is just a matter of numbers and access at this point.   Also artistic quality is an extremely subjective thing. To the point of saying that it is degrading feels exceedingly hard to actually quantify. Is it degrading because lots of people can attempt to make art because it is cheap enough for them to or for it to be a hobby? So because they are not THE BEST but can still keep doing it because it is affordable to them and they enjoy it, they are bringing all artistic quality down because it is not perfect?   For example:  Water Color Painter X paints full time out of their studio apartment in Charleston North Carolina and sells them at a gallery nearby. The painter must produce works that people like so they get sold so that they can afford to pay their rent and get food. But their brushwork is fantastic and clean and they are able to bust out landscape water color paintings pretty quickly. So they just copy scenes around the area and they sell them. Water Color Painter A is a grandpa in Flagstaff Arizona. He is retired and took some water color classes at the community center. He really likes it. So he got some supplies and does it at home because he loves it and the feel of it and making something. His line work is spotty at best and it isnt really that clean or clear at times and he doesnt do a solid job with his colors. Mixing them improperly and maybe to much or to little when he wants it to be uniform color. But he does it for the piece itself, that is why he paints. He paints his family and loves it. He wants to share with people what he made because he is proud of it. Over a year he finished 2 paintings, one of his family in the backyard and one of his daughters and son at a table together. WCPX busted out 80 paintings in that time all of them of exceedingly higher quality and skill than WCPAs 2 paintings. With much less emotion or intent to affect the viewers and express emotion than WCPAs. So which of these 2 would be degrading artistic quality? The one whos quality of their work in the actual refinement of the piece is lesser but has more emotion and intent to evoke emotion in it. Or the one who has great refinement but has no intent to really evoke emotion in the viewer?   I would argue that content and content creation(creators) is a better term as it is not stating some value to it with its existence. It says, I make things. I can be a content creator if I am a comedian or a short story writer, as much as I am a content creator if I make wooden statues with a chisel or paint with acrylics, or someone who makes youtube videos. Because for example, say I am a clothes makers. And I have a youtube channel where I show the process of how I made a dress, I then also put that dress on my etsy page to sell, would calling me an artist feel like a weird term to use? Possibly. If you call me a content creator because my method of expression is not classically commonly seen as art still encompass what I do? Yes. Does it mean that the dresses that I make to try and accentuate someones figure while using modern stylings but the piece being evocative of what we know of 1650s noble clothing in eastern europe is NOT an expressive and creative endevor that holds, as you define it, \"artistic quality\"? hell no.  I also feel that part of this is limited by how you view art, what you view as art another may not. Which is its whole other discussion as you point out. So I dont feel that artistic quality is degrading, how we access art is definitely changing. It is now something made by the masses. Not the few capable of devoting their entire existence to it. Whoch feels MORE important to society for me. It makes art and content more reflective of society at large instead of being influence and controlled by a select few at the top.   This is probably just a lot of rambling at this point. So I am sorry about that. Hope this was able to change your mind in some way or expand how you look at art and content creation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4018.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqpst0q","c_root_id_B":"hqq284f","created_at_utc_A":1640978461,"created_at_utc_B":1640982378,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In the past, only the most skilled\/talented people could be artists. Today, we still have the same percentage of talented artists. But we also have a bunch more \"content creators.\" For example, if the population is 50 people, maybe 1 is a talented artist. 100% of the artists are true artists. Now say the population grows to 500 people. Now there are 10 good artists. But there are also 40 content creators. Only 20% of the creative people are true\/good artists. So it seems like there are fewer artists and less high quality work, but that's just a statistical fallacy.","human_ref_B":"I would argue there is a much greater ability for people to become artists in modern times compared to before. The barrier to entry into art is ASTRONOMICALLLY lower today than it was even 150 years ago. There are also, more artforms today than there were 150 years ago. Now, someone can be an artist utilizing digital 3D space to create a VR experience showing people things that are physically impossible to do. You can be a director of a film and make that work of art. Or create a videogame and make that art. Also, access to supplies, if I wanted to paint in 1534, i had to be well off enough to send out and get paint supplies and easles or dedicate my entire life to that art form and pursuit. Also my points of reference and what I could learn from are SEVERELY limited compared to now. For example, I could pick up a history of painting and painting styles book today and learn more about art and styles and progressions in a couple days than Michelangelo learned in his entire life.   But also, art as a term, has a specific inclination and by and large makes a value statement about what it is. Where as content and content creation has much much lower expectations. It is something made. It does not try and say it is some fantastical special thing. It claims itself to be, just something that is there.   Artists are content creators. They make something, whether it be a play, a painting, or whathave you. They are creators of some kind of content. But not all content creators are or claim to be artists.   I know someone who does graphic design and clothes, he edits, modifies, reconstitutes, and remakes things constantly, he is fundamentally transformative on the material. but he will not call himself an artist and does not want to. Because he doesnt want the boojie title of artist as he only sees pretentious assholes call themselves artists.   There are more arnow than there were 100 years ago. That is an undeniable fact. It is just a matter of numbers and access at this point.   Also artistic quality is an extremely subjective thing. To the point of saying that it is degrading feels exceedingly hard to actually quantify. Is it degrading because lots of people can attempt to make art because it is cheap enough for them to or for it to be a hobby? So because they are not THE BEST but can still keep doing it because it is affordable to them and they enjoy it, they are bringing all artistic quality down because it is not perfect?   For example:  Water Color Painter X paints full time out of their studio apartment in Charleston North Carolina and sells them at a gallery nearby. The painter must produce works that people like so they get sold so that they can afford to pay their rent and get food. But their brushwork is fantastic and clean and they are able to bust out landscape water color paintings pretty quickly. So they just copy scenes around the area and they sell them. Water Color Painter A is a grandpa in Flagstaff Arizona. He is retired and took some water color classes at the community center. He really likes it. So he got some supplies and does it at home because he loves it and the feel of it and making something. His line work is spotty at best and it isnt really that clean or clear at times and he doesnt do a solid job with his colors. Mixing them improperly and maybe to much or to little when he wants it to be uniform color. But he does it for the piece itself, that is why he paints. He paints his family and loves it. He wants to share with people what he made because he is proud of it. Over a year he finished 2 paintings, one of his family in the backyard and one of his daughters and son at a table together. WCPX busted out 80 paintings in that time all of them of exceedingly higher quality and skill than WCPAs 2 paintings. With much less emotion or intent to affect the viewers and express emotion than WCPAs. So which of these 2 would be degrading artistic quality? The one whos quality of their work in the actual refinement of the piece is lesser but has more emotion and intent to evoke emotion in it. Or the one who has great refinement but has no intent to really evoke emotion in the viewer?   I would argue that content and content creation(creators) is a better term as it is not stating some value to it with its existence. It says, I make things. I can be a content creator if I am a comedian or a short story writer, as much as I am a content creator if I make wooden statues with a chisel or paint with acrylics, or someone who makes youtube videos. Because for example, say I am a clothes makers. And I have a youtube channel where I show the process of how I made a dress, I then also put that dress on my etsy page to sell, would calling me an artist feel like a weird term to use? Possibly. If you call me a content creator because my method of expression is not classically commonly seen as art still encompass what I do? Yes. Does it mean that the dresses that I make to try and accentuate someones figure while using modern stylings but the piece being evocative of what we know of 1650s noble clothing in eastern europe is NOT an expressive and creative endevor that holds, as you define it, \"artistic quality\"? hell no.  I also feel that part of this is limited by how you view art, what you view as art another may not. Which is its whole other discussion as you point out. So I dont feel that artistic quality is degrading, how we access art is definitely changing. It is now something made by the masses. Not the few capable of devoting their entire existence to it. Whoch feels MORE important to society for me. It makes art and content more reflective of society at large instead of being influence and controlled by a select few at the top.   This is probably just a lot of rambling at this point. So I am sorry about that. Hope this was able to change your mind in some way or expand how you look at art and content creation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3917.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqq14ep","c_root_id_B":"hqq284f","created_at_utc_A":1640981910,"created_at_utc_B":1640982378,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for society or anything like that, they are just bad for artistic creation!  They're bad for people who use them poorly. To me it's similar to the argument surrounding something like alcohol and or weed. One could make a company that sells alcohol or weed, become successful, good for them. Someone could periodically use those substances, not necessarily bad there. Then you have people who abuse it, that's bad. It depends on the individual and the argument should more so be around \"How much responsibility can we expect society to sustain in general?\".   >If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  This doesn't have much to do with things like youtube (I'm a videographer), years ago it was extremely difficult to upload \"movie like\" quality images to the internet, things just become easier and movies have to step it up to compete. Now some guy named Troy can be stoned in his apartment and fly a drone the size of his hand to capture an image that would previously require a helicopter. The easier it becomes for your everyday person to create good images the more others have to step it up, so in a way it does contribute to better \"art\", but it's not because of platforms, it's because of tech.   >If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a positive impact on artistic value, eventually.  We're living in a time of a short window of opportunity, you can become wildly successful by showing people how to do basic things and display them on the internet. It's just about being able to see those things and put them together, the younger generation will know how to do this pretty easily. It will fizzle out as a \"skill\".","human_ref_B":"I would argue there is a much greater ability for people to become artists in modern times compared to before. The barrier to entry into art is ASTRONOMICALLLY lower today than it was even 150 years ago. There are also, more artforms today than there were 150 years ago. Now, someone can be an artist utilizing digital 3D space to create a VR experience showing people things that are physically impossible to do. You can be a director of a film and make that work of art. Or create a videogame and make that art. Also, access to supplies, if I wanted to paint in 1534, i had to be well off enough to send out and get paint supplies and easles or dedicate my entire life to that art form and pursuit. Also my points of reference and what I could learn from are SEVERELY limited compared to now. For example, I could pick up a history of painting and painting styles book today and learn more about art and styles and progressions in a couple days than Michelangelo learned in his entire life.   But also, art as a term, has a specific inclination and by and large makes a value statement about what it is. Where as content and content creation has much much lower expectations. It is something made. It does not try and say it is some fantastical special thing. It claims itself to be, just something that is there.   Artists are content creators. They make something, whether it be a play, a painting, or whathave you. They are creators of some kind of content. But not all content creators are or claim to be artists.   I know someone who does graphic design and clothes, he edits, modifies, reconstitutes, and remakes things constantly, he is fundamentally transformative on the material. but he will not call himself an artist and does not want to. Because he doesnt want the boojie title of artist as he only sees pretentious assholes call themselves artists.   There are more arnow than there were 100 years ago. That is an undeniable fact. It is just a matter of numbers and access at this point.   Also artistic quality is an extremely subjective thing. To the point of saying that it is degrading feels exceedingly hard to actually quantify. Is it degrading because lots of people can attempt to make art because it is cheap enough for them to or for it to be a hobby? So because they are not THE BEST but can still keep doing it because it is affordable to them and they enjoy it, they are bringing all artistic quality down because it is not perfect?   For example:  Water Color Painter X paints full time out of their studio apartment in Charleston North Carolina and sells them at a gallery nearby. The painter must produce works that people like so they get sold so that they can afford to pay their rent and get food. But their brushwork is fantastic and clean and they are able to bust out landscape water color paintings pretty quickly. So they just copy scenes around the area and they sell them. Water Color Painter A is a grandpa in Flagstaff Arizona. He is retired and took some water color classes at the community center. He really likes it. So he got some supplies and does it at home because he loves it and the feel of it and making something. His line work is spotty at best and it isnt really that clean or clear at times and he doesnt do a solid job with his colors. Mixing them improperly and maybe to much or to little when he wants it to be uniform color. But he does it for the piece itself, that is why he paints. He paints his family and loves it. He wants to share with people what he made because he is proud of it. Over a year he finished 2 paintings, one of his family in the backyard and one of his daughters and son at a table together. WCPX busted out 80 paintings in that time all of them of exceedingly higher quality and skill than WCPAs 2 paintings. With much less emotion or intent to affect the viewers and express emotion than WCPAs. So which of these 2 would be degrading artistic quality? The one whos quality of their work in the actual refinement of the piece is lesser but has more emotion and intent to evoke emotion in it. Or the one who has great refinement but has no intent to really evoke emotion in the viewer?   I would argue that content and content creation(creators) is a better term as it is not stating some value to it with its existence. It says, I make things. I can be a content creator if I am a comedian or a short story writer, as much as I am a content creator if I make wooden statues with a chisel or paint with acrylics, or someone who makes youtube videos. Because for example, say I am a clothes makers. And I have a youtube channel where I show the process of how I made a dress, I then also put that dress on my etsy page to sell, would calling me an artist feel like a weird term to use? Possibly. If you call me a content creator because my method of expression is not classically commonly seen as art still encompass what I do? Yes. Does it mean that the dresses that I make to try and accentuate someones figure while using modern stylings but the piece being evocative of what we know of 1650s noble clothing in eastern europe is NOT an expressive and creative endevor that holds, as you define it, \"artistic quality\"? hell no.  I also feel that part of this is limited by how you view art, what you view as art another may not. Which is its whole other discussion as you point out. So I dont feel that artistic quality is degrading, how we access art is definitely changing. It is now something made by the masses. Not the few capable of devoting their entire existence to it. Whoch feels MORE important to society for me. It makes art and content more reflective of society at large instead of being influence and controlled by a select few at the top.   This is probably just a lot of rambling at this point. So I am sorry about that. Hope this was able to change your mind in some way or expand how you look at art and content creation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":468.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqqnoyz","c_root_id_B":"hqps9lj","created_at_utc_A":1640991843,"created_at_utc_B":1640978236,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.  Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does  Are you suggesting that artists in the past were not motivated by user engagement?  Were musicians not motivated to sell albums \/ get radio time \/ sell shows?  Was theatre not judged by attendance and critical review?  Were painters not motivated by sales and appeals to rich patrons for commissions?  The consumption of the art has *always* been a thing.  The idea of the starving, brooding artist is something popularized by french impressionists and and run with by suburban emo kids with rich parents... but like that's not the whole of art.  Various social media platform are orthogonal to artistic creation. Short form video is just a means of distributing art - or literally any other piece of information.  Suggesting that the platform de-incentivizes artistic creation is equivalent to suggesting that  * Video killed the radio star * Radio killed symphony \/ big band * The printing press killed great oration and theatre  It's like yeah, inevitably when a new means of consumption comes out it has to take from somewhere - but it doesn't prevent it, and it often it creates far more than it takes.  Much like everything that makes it easier to create and distribute ideas, it means fewer people are denied the ability to participate. Removing the inaccessibility \/ high up-front cost means that you don't have gatekeepers selecting the wheat from the chaff.  The end result is more art, and the masses select it rather than some intermediates.  Taylor Swift is now regarded as one of the top musical artists of the generation, but don't forget she made her start on a reality TV show that was seen as hollow and un-artistic. Tick-tockers are doing the same thing.  Beware survivorship bias.  Its easy to compare the greats that we remember to the trash of today, but that's not representative.","human_ref_B":"I feel this is like saying space travel was bad for artistic expression because some people who might have wanted to write about space will now work as an astronaut or an engineer or something.   And more to the point some of my favorite amateur writing has come from let's plays. Text and screenshot instead of video, but let's plays all the same.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13607.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqpskc5","c_root_id_B":"hqqnoyz","created_at_utc_A":1640978360,"created_at_utc_B":1640991843,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think there is obviously some truth here but I don\u2019t know if the net result is negative.  Biggest reason is that most low effort content is  not supposed to compete with or be art. it supposed to compete with non interactive forms of media and it\u2019s supposed to be simulated friendship. Major changes in how we socialize and consume media probably will impact the pursuit of art but they are still separate things.","human_ref_B":"> Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.  Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does  Are you suggesting that artists in the past were not motivated by user engagement?  Were musicians not motivated to sell albums \/ get radio time \/ sell shows?  Was theatre not judged by attendance and critical review?  Were painters not motivated by sales and appeals to rich patrons for commissions?  The consumption of the art has *always* been a thing.  The idea of the starving, brooding artist is something popularized by french impressionists and and run with by suburban emo kids with rich parents... but like that's not the whole of art.  Various social media platform are orthogonal to artistic creation. Short form video is just a means of distributing art - or literally any other piece of information.  Suggesting that the platform de-incentivizes artistic creation is equivalent to suggesting that  * Video killed the radio star * Radio killed symphony \/ big band * The printing press killed great oration and theatre  It's like yeah, inevitably when a new means of consumption comes out it has to take from somewhere - but it doesn't prevent it, and it often it creates far more than it takes.  Much like everything that makes it easier to create and distribute ideas, it means fewer people are denied the ability to participate. Removing the inaccessibility \/ high up-front cost means that you don't have gatekeepers selecting the wheat from the chaff.  The end result is more art, and the masses select it rather than some intermediates.  Taylor Swift is now regarded as one of the top musical artists of the generation, but don't forget she made her start on a reality TV show that was seen as hollow and un-artistic. Tick-tockers are doing the same thing.  Beware survivorship bias.  Its easy to compare the greats that we remember to the trash of today, but that's not representative.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13483.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqqnoyz","c_root_id_B":"hqpst0q","created_at_utc_A":1640991843,"created_at_utc_B":1640978461,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.  Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does  Are you suggesting that artists in the past were not motivated by user engagement?  Were musicians not motivated to sell albums \/ get radio time \/ sell shows?  Was theatre not judged by attendance and critical review?  Were painters not motivated by sales and appeals to rich patrons for commissions?  The consumption of the art has *always* been a thing.  The idea of the starving, brooding artist is something popularized by french impressionists and and run with by suburban emo kids with rich parents... but like that's not the whole of art.  Various social media platform are orthogonal to artistic creation. Short form video is just a means of distributing art - or literally any other piece of information.  Suggesting that the platform de-incentivizes artistic creation is equivalent to suggesting that  * Video killed the radio star * Radio killed symphony \/ big band * The printing press killed great oration and theatre  It's like yeah, inevitably when a new means of consumption comes out it has to take from somewhere - but it doesn't prevent it, and it often it creates far more than it takes.  Much like everything that makes it easier to create and distribute ideas, it means fewer people are denied the ability to participate. Removing the inaccessibility \/ high up-front cost means that you don't have gatekeepers selecting the wheat from the chaff.  The end result is more art, and the masses select it rather than some intermediates.  Taylor Swift is now regarded as one of the top musical artists of the generation, but don't forget she made her start on a reality TV show that was seen as hollow and un-artistic. Tick-tockers are doing the same thing.  Beware survivorship bias.  Its easy to compare the greats that we remember to the trash of today, but that's not representative.","human_ref_B":"In the past, only the most skilled\/talented people could be artists. Today, we still have the same percentage of talented artists. But we also have a bunch more \"content creators.\" For example, if the population is 50 people, maybe 1 is a talented artist. 100% of the artists are true artists. Now say the population grows to 500 people. Now there are 10 good artists. But there are also 40 content creators. Only 20% of the creative people are true\/good artists. So it seems like there are fewer artists and less high quality work, but that's just a statistical fallacy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13382.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqq14ep","c_root_id_B":"hqqnoyz","created_at_utc_A":1640981910,"created_at_utc_B":1640991843,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for society or anything like that, they are just bad for artistic creation!  They're bad for people who use them poorly. To me it's similar to the argument surrounding something like alcohol and or weed. One could make a company that sells alcohol or weed, become successful, good for them. Someone could periodically use those substances, not necessarily bad there. Then you have people who abuse it, that's bad. It depends on the individual and the argument should more so be around \"How much responsibility can we expect society to sustain in general?\".   >If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  This doesn't have much to do with things like youtube (I'm a videographer), years ago it was extremely difficult to upload \"movie like\" quality images to the internet, things just become easier and movies have to step it up to compete. Now some guy named Troy can be stoned in his apartment and fly a drone the size of his hand to capture an image that would previously require a helicopter. The easier it becomes for your everyday person to create good images the more others have to step it up, so in a way it does contribute to better \"art\", but it's not because of platforms, it's because of tech.   >If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a positive impact on artistic value, eventually.  We're living in a time of a short window of opportunity, you can become wildly successful by showing people how to do basic things and display them on the internet. It's just about being able to see those things and put them together, the younger generation will know how to do this pretty easily. It will fizzle out as a \"skill\".","human_ref_B":"> Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.  Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does  Are you suggesting that artists in the past were not motivated by user engagement?  Were musicians not motivated to sell albums \/ get radio time \/ sell shows?  Was theatre not judged by attendance and critical review?  Were painters not motivated by sales and appeals to rich patrons for commissions?  The consumption of the art has *always* been a thing.  The idea of the starving, brooding artist is something popularized by french impressionists and and run with by suburban emo kids with rich parents... but like that's not the whole of art.  Various social media platform are orthogonal to artistic creation. Short form video is just a means of distributing art - or literally any other piece of information.  Suggesting that the platform de-incentivizes artistic creation is equivalent to suggesting that  * Video killed the radio star * Radio killed symphony \/ big band * The printing press killed great oration and theatre  It's like yeah, inevitably when a new means of consumption comes out it has to take from somewhere - but it doesn't prevent it, and it often it creates far more than it takes.  Much like everything that makes it easier to create and distribute ideas, it means fewer people are denied the ability to participate. Removing the inaccessibility \/ high up-front cost means that you don't have gatekeepers selecting the wheat from the chaff.  The end result is more art, and the masses select it rather than some intermediates.  Taylor Swift is now regarded as one of the top musical artists of the generation, but don't forget she made her start on a reality TV show that was seen as hollow and un-artistic. Tick-tockers are doing the same thing.  Beware survivorship bias.  Its easy to compare the greats that we remember to the trash of today, but that's not representative.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9933.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"rt0p2v","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: The shift from \"Art\" to \"Content Creation\" is degrading the artistic quality of creative works, and will continue to for the foreseeable future (Fresh topic) Hey all, this one is mostly for fun, but I do think a lot about how the internet and content consumption has an effect on creatives around the world. Definitely open to changing my view and also hearing different perspectives.  In recent decades, social media, YouTube and other internet platforms have become the main places many people go to consume media and spend their free time. This obviously has had a huge impact on creatives, and we see a huge number of aspiring \"Content Creators\" and less aspiring \"Artists.\" In my argument, I'm using Artist as a blanket statement to include anyone who makes creative works. Musicians, authors, poets, visual artists, filmmakers, etc.  ***Artistic quality*** is something that is obviously subjective and up for debate, but I think many kinds of content are blatantly non-artistic, and it would be hard to argue that they are. Examples: Let's Play Youtube channels, reaction channels, Instagram and Snapchat influencers, many many subreddits, the vast majority of TikTok videos, many podcasts, etc. While I am open to debating what is of artistic value, I would say works that qualify as artistic and having lasting quality have some qualifications:  \\- The act of creating, and the work itself is emotionally expressive for the creator. It also is typically seen as an artistic, self-expressive act by the creator.  \\- The work provokes an emotional, meaningful, or thought provoking response in those engaging with it.  \\- It has a lasting cultural effect or meaningful impact on society.  \\- It is, well... creating something that wasn't there before! Someone making ***anything*** that expresses their inner world, to me, is inherently more artistic than a video of you doing squats at the gym.  It's obvious to see that these platforms function in an inherently different way than all other creative or artistic platforms in human history, and thus effect the artistic works made for the platforms. All social media websites are driven on user engagement, with the algorithms that drive these websites solely focused on ***keeping users on their platform as long as possible.*** This by itself is going to change the nature of the media made for these platforms - users are no longer rewarded for creating works that have higher ***quality,*** or have a thought provoking or lasting effect on society, they are only rewarded for creating works that are immediately eye catching, or keep users engaged for this exact moment, only to be forgotten about seconds later quite often. Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.   Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does. Many platforms incentivize creators to constantly be pushing out new content, and I think this is antithetical to the quiet contemplation many artistic works require. I think many people who might have opted to be an author before YouTube became huge might choose now to make a film analysis channel, or something similar, due to the instant feedback and ability to reach more people, as opposed to spending months or years doing research and writing a novel alone. There are more people opting into a less artistic platform, and making less quality creations as a result. There is also much less of a focus on originality and\/or artistry, and more of a focus on entertainment  Things to address about my argument and things that will change my view:  \\- I hope this isn't coming off as pretentious - I don't think these platforms are bad for ***society*** or anything like that, they are just bad for ***artistic creation!***  \\- If you can prove that on the whole, there are more quality creative works being made now than there were previously. I mean heck, maybe only 3% of all YouTube channels are actually of artistic quality, but maybe that's more than there used to be during the hayday of Television, Radio and film. (Please link your artistically pleasing sources here!)  \\- If you can change my mind on what criteria is important when determining artistic value - I'm open to having my view changed on this, have fun with it!  \\- If you can show me other platforms or other avenues that creators are disseminating their original artistic works, and are incentivized on originality. Bandcamp is a good example.  \\- If you can argue that in the future, it won't always be this way, and that while at the moment this is the effect that algorithms are having on content creation, that for some reason it will actually have a ***positive*** impact on artistic value, eventually.","c_root_id_A":"hqqnoyz","c_root_id_B":"hqq2uwx","created_at_utc_A":1640991843,"created_at_utc_B":1640982654,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> Obviously this feedback loop will lead to people who shape their lives around creating content for these platforms, and will make works that lead to user engagement.  Does this change in mentality, the change to a \"Content Creator\" lead to less artistically valuable works being made on the whole? I think, in general, it does  Are you suggesting that artists in the past were not motivated by user engagement?  Were musicians not motivated to sell albums \/ get radio time \/ sell shows?  Was theatre not judged by attendance and critical review?  Were painters not motivated by sales and appeals to rich patrons for commissions?  The consumption of the art has *always* been a thing.  The idea of the starving, brooding artist is something popularized by french impressionists and and run with by suburban emo kids with rich parents... but like that's not the whole of art.  Various social media platform are orthogonal to artistic creation. Short form video is just a means of distributing art - or literally any other piece of information.  Suggesting that the platform de-incentivizes artistic creation is equivalent to suggesting that  * Video killed the radio star * Radio killed symphony \/ big band * The printing press killed great oration and theatre  It's like yeah, inevitably when a new means of consumption comes out it has to take from somewhere - but it doesn't prevent it, and it often it creates far more than it takes.  Much like everything that makes it easier to create and distribute ideas, it means fewer people are denied the ability to participate. Removing the inaccessibility \/ high up-front cost means that you don't have gatekeepers selecting the wheat from the chaff.  The end result is more art, and the masses select it rather than some intermediates.  Taylor Swift is now regarded as one of the top musical artists of the generation, but don't forget she made her start on a reality TV show that was seen as hollow and un-artistic. Tick-tockers are doing the same thing.  Beware survivorship bias.  Its easy to compare the greats that we remember to the trash of today, but that's not representative.","human_ref_B":"Art and content creation have always been two facets of the same thing. Art of the sake of art in the public doesn't exist much. You have some public displays and some publicly funded museums but even then you need a grant. It's always been like this. Large scale art and collections of art have always been funded and organized by larger institutions.npt necessarily run by artists. We think of a lot of statues  and stuff as art but those were usually some kind of \"content\" created by a comissioned artist.   As well many classic works of art come from privelaged backgrounds. Stories like Van Gogh are rarer than they are common. Most rennaisance painters were rather rich and could afford to just paint all day.  The art we reflect upon in history isn't the same kind of art that artists make for the sake of art. Art for the sake of art should be done for the sake of art and for the sake of wanting to do it, not necessarily for recognition or appreciation. Art done specifically to try to sell is pretty much \"content\" by definition. It has and always will need to exist.   You almost can't have one without the others. People will always want comissioned art. Non-artists will always want to pay for artists work. Conversely get enough artists together and create enough art for any reasom and there may be some appreciation and effort to maintain that art for posterity for the sake of the art that arises from that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9189.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4odqux","c_root_id_B":"g4o9z21","created_at_utc_A":1599745310,"created_at_utc_B":1599744277,"score_A":54,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":">In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare...  Your education and healthcare is not just \"free\". Citizens\/tax payers are paying for it. If you make 9252 a year in GBP you'll be taxed 19% of your income. If you make the equivalent in USD, 12000 a year, you'll be taxed 10% of your income. That is half less than Scotland. On top of this, in the US,  you will also have the chance to benefit from many different government services that will provide free college, free healthcare, cheap housing, daycare, food stamps, etc. If you cannot receive these services you may get most of what you paid in taxes back in a refund.  Basically in Scotland you are forced to pay nearly twice as much in taxes for services that you may not ever want or use. So it is not free for you, or a freedom to choose.  &#x200B;  >... in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment ...  This is capitalism at work. Doctors are recommending things that are clinically proven to work.   Sure they may pick one brand over another due to incentive, but it is still essentially the same. Also many people may get prescribed a brand but instead pick up a generic version that their insurance covers or is much cheaper.  And let's not forget that if you happen to live somewhere with universal healthcare and in a densely populated area, there will be long lines for a doctor visit. When doctors make less money, there will be less doctors. And when everyone can go in for any problem, for free, there will be more patients.  &#x200B;  >....your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you...  Only 8% of prisoners are in privatized prisons. For those 8%, I will agree with you.  &#x200B;  >.... I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings...  Maybe so. But not having guns would mean we depend solely on the police to protect us. On average, 67,000 lives are saved per year with fire arm self dense. There are around 1,000 people killed per year by police (this includes those who were aggressors). So I would say our guns are helping to secure our freedom, not take it away.   How easy is it to make over 150K in Scotland? How easy is it to start a company or launch a product? How easy is it to open up a store or restaurant?","human_ref_B":">In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  why do you believe these are essentially to be a true \"land of the free\".  what land of the free has always meant is that you are free.  You are free to quit your job.  Free to move.  Free to speak.  Free to bear arms.  Free to vote. Prior to the american revolution we still had mostly kinds and queens.  absolute monarchies.  The king could take your land.  Your lord could deny your request to marry.  They could prevent you from moving.  Land of the free just means that you are free.  It doesn't mean that you are entitled to receive things from others.  Free healthcare really is the opposite of freedom.  It means that the state takes your money in order to pay for a healthcare system and you have no choice in the matter.  You don't control how that portion of your money is spent.  You don't have the freedom to provide for your own healthcare.  That's not a bad thing, america is the same with education.  I must pay my country taxes with fund my local schools.  I have no freedom there.  I cannot decide to opt out of funding public school.  Its not really a bad thing, but it is a limitation on my freedom.  Its not an extension of my freedom.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1033.0,"score_ratio":1.0384615385}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4odnsn","c_root_id_B":"g4odqux","created_at_utc_A":1599745287,"created_at_utc_B":1599745310,"score_A":9,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"America\u2019s healthcare system is not truly privatized though. That\u2019s the biggest problem.   Also, land of free means you\u2019re free to make your own choices. People have been born poor and made great choices and have become rich. Three things people can do to ensure they don\u2019t live in poverty: 1) graduate high school, 2) don\u2019t have kids early 3) have a job.   America is about personal choices. Not government mandating things. A lot of us think our government steps in too much and needs to get out of things. Then many sectors will correct themselves.   Also, you don\u2019t need a college education to be successful. That\u2019s the biggest lie that has been started.","human_ref_B":">In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare...  Your education and healthcare is not just \"free\". Citizens\/tax payers are paying for it. If you make 9252 a year in GBP you'll be taxed 19% of your income. If you make the equivalent in USD, 12000 a year, you'll be taxed 10% of your income. That is half less than Scotland. On top of this, in the US,  you will also have the chance to benefit from many different government services that will provide free college, free healthcare, cheap housing, daycare, food stamps, etc. If you cannot receive these services you may get most of what you paid in taxes back in a refund.  Basically in Scotland you are forced to pay nearly twice as much in taxes for services that you may not ever want or use. So it is not free for you, or a freedom to choose.  &#x200B;  >... in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment ...  This is capitalism at work. Doctors are recommending things that are clinically proven to work.   Sure they may pick one brand over another due to incentive, but it is still essentially the same. Also many people may get prescribed a brand but instead pick up a generic version that their insurance covers or is much cheaper.  And let's not forget that if you happen to live somewhere with universal healthcare and in a densely populated area, there will be long lines for a doctor visit. When doctors make less money, there will be less doctors. And when everyone can go in for any problem, for free, there will be more patients.  &#x200B;  >....your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you...  Only 8% of prisoners are in privatized prisons. For those 8%, I will agree with you.  &#x200B;  >.... I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings...  Maybe so. But not having guns would mean we depend solely on the police to protect us. On average, 67,000 lives are saved per year with fire arm self dense. There are around 1,000 people killed per year by police (this includes those who were aggressors). So I would say our guns are helping to secure our freedom, not take it away.   How easy is it to make over 150K in Scotland? How easy is it to start a company or launch a product? How easy is it to open up a store or restaurant?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o6adv","c_root_id_B":"g4odqux","created_at_utc_A":1599743185,"created_at_utc_B":1599745310,"score_A":4,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.","human_ref_B":">In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare...  Your education and healthcare is not just \"free\". Citizens\/tax payers are paying for it. If you make 9252 a year in GBP you'll be taxed 19% of your income. If you make the equivalent in USD, 12000 a year, you'll be taxed 10% of your income. That is half less than Scotland. On top of this, in the US,  you will also have the chance to benefit from many different government services that will provide free college, free healthcare, cheap housing, daycare, food stamps, etc. If you cannot receive these services you may get most of what you paid in taxes back in a refund.  Basically in Scotland you are forced to pay nearly twice as much in taxes for services that you may not ever want or use. So it is not free for you, or a freedom to choose.  &#x200B;  >... in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment ...  This is capitalism at work. Doctors are recommending things that are clinically proven to work.   Sure they may pick one brand over another due to incentive, but it is still essentially the same. Also many people may get prescribed a brand but instead pick up a generic version that their insurance covers or is much cheaper.  And let's not forget that if you happen to live somewhere with universal healthcare and in a densely populated area, there will be long lines for a doctor visit. When doctors make less money, there will be less doctors. And when everyone can go in for any problem, for free, there will be more patients.  &#x200B;  >....your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you...  Only 8% of prisoners are in privatized prisons. For those 8%, I will agree with you.  &#x200B;  >.... I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings...  Maybe so. But not having guns would mean we depend solely on the police to protect us. On average, 67,000 lives are saved per year with fire arm self dense. There are around 1,000 people killed per year by police (this includes those who were aggressors). So I would say our guns are helping to secure our freedom, not take it away.   How easy is it to make over 150K in Scotland? How easy is it to start a company or launch a product? How easy is it to open up a store or restaurant?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2125.0,"score_ratio":13.5}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4odqux","c_root_id_B":"g4o9tfg","created_at_utc_A":1599745310,"created_at_utc_B":1599744231,"score_A":54,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare...  Your education and healthcare is not just \"free\". Citizens\/tax payers are paying for it. If you make 9252 a year in GBP you'll be taxed 19% of your income. If you make the equivalent in USD, 12000 a year, you'll be taxed 10% of your income. That is half less than Scotland. On top of this, in the US,  you will also have the chance to benefit from many different government services that will provide free college, free healthcare, cheap housing, daycare, food stamps, etc. If you cannot receive these services you may get most of what you paid in taxes back in a refund.  Basically in Scotland you are forced to pay nearly twice as much in taxes for services that you may not ever want or use. So it is not free for you, or a freedom to choose.  &#x200B;  >... in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment ...  This is capitalism at work. Doctors are recommending things that are clinically proven to work.   Sure they may pick one brand over another due to incentive, but it is still essentially the same. Also many people may get prescribed a brand but instead pick up a generic version that their insurance covers or is much cheaper.  And let's not forget that if you happen to live somewhere with universal healthcare and in a densely populated area, there will be long lines for a doctor visit. When doctors make less money, there will be less doctors. And when everyone can go in for any problem, for free, there will be more patients.  &#x200B;  >....your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you...  Only 8% of prisoners are in privatized prisons. For those 8%, I will agree with you.  &#x200B;  >.... I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings...  Maybe so. But not having guns would mean we depend solely on the police to protect us. On average, 67,000 lives are saved per year with fire arm self dense. There are around 1,000 people killed per year by police (this includes those who were aggressors). So I would say our guns are helping to secure our freedom, not take it away.   How easy is it to make over 150K in Scotland? How easy is it to start a company or launch a product? How easy is it to open up a store or restaurant?","human_ref_B":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1079.0,"score_ratio":18.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o6adv","c_root_id_B":"g4o9z21","created_at_utc_A":1599743185,"created_at_utc_B":1599744277,"score_A":4,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.","human_ref_B":">In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  why do you believe these are essentially to be a true \"land of the free\".  what land of the free has always meant is that you are free.  You are free to quit your job.  Free to move.  Free to speak.  Free to bear arms.  Free to vote. Prior to the american revolution we still had mostly kinds and queens.  absolute monarchies.  The king could take your land.  Your lord could deny your request to marry.  They could prevent you from moving.  Land of the free just means that you are free.  It doesn't mean that you are entitled to receive things from others.  Free healthcare really is the opposite of freedom.  It means that the state takes your money in order to pay for a healthcare system and you have no choice in the matter.  You don't control how that portion of your money is spent.  You don't have the freedom to provide for your own healthcare.  That's not a bad thing, america is the same with education.  I must pay my country taxes with fund my local schools.  I have no freedom there.  I cannot decide to opt out of funding public school.  Its not really a bad thing, but it is a limitation on my freedom.  Its not an extension of my freedom.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1092.0,"score_ratio":13.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o9tfg","c_root_id_B":"g4o9z21","created_at_utc_A":1599744231,"created_at_utc_B":1599744277,"score_A":3,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","human_ref_B":">In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  why do you believe these are essentially to be a true \"land of the free\".  what land of the free has always meant is that you are free.  You are free to quit your job.  Free to move.  Free to speak.  Free to bear arms.  Free to vote. Prior to the american revolution we still had mostly kinds and queens.  absolute monarchies.  The king could take your land.  Your lord could deny your request to marry.  They could prevent you from moving.  Land of the free just means that you are free.  It doesn't mean that you are entitled to receive things from others.  Free healthcare really is the opposite of freedom.  It means that the state takes your money in order to pay for a healthcare system and you have no choice in the matter.  You don't control how that portion of your money is spent.  You don't have the freedom to provide for your own healthcare.  That's not a bad thing, america is the same with education.  I must pay my country taxes with fund my local schools.  I have no freedom there.  I cannot decide to opt out of funding public school.  Its not really a bad thing, but it is a limitation on my freedom.  Its not an extension of my freedom.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":46.0,"score_ratio":17.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4okeb1","c_root_id_B":"g4odnsn","created_at_utc_A":1599747109,"created_at_utc_B":1599745287,"score_A":36,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"For starters, our Healthcare system is NOT privatized.  We have a hybrid system, which is arguably the biggest problem.  If we had an actual true Capitalist, privatized Healthcare system, the US Government's spending on healthcare would be $0.00.  Instead, we actually spend *more* than every other nation on the planet on healthcare (per person).  Conflating that with education, those are not 'free', it's why people in Scotland (and Europe) generally pay significantly more in taxes than Americans do.  It's also worth noting that despite the 'free' education in much of Europe, the US actually has a much higher percentage of people with College degrees than the vast majority of Europe.  About 25% of the US has a Bachelor's degree, that's a higher percentage than Norway, Sweden, France, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, and Germany.  *Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.*  About 8% of US Prisoners are in private prisons.  Of all the things to point out, this one may be the most ironic, because about 15% of prisoners in Scotland are in private prisons.  So Scotland actually has a much bigger private prison issue than the US does.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Private_prison#United_Kingdom  *Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.*  Regardless of your stance on guns, I have significantly more ability to purchase firearms than you do.  Therefore, that means I have more freedom than you in this regard.  You can certainly argue over whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I'd say \"we need to restrict your freedom to make you more free\" is some Orwellian NewSpeak.  Edit:  Also, c'mon, do I really need to point out to you that Scotland arrested, convicted, and nearly jailed someone for teaching a Pug to do a Nazi salute?  https:\/\/www.newsweek.com\/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-following-hate-crime-conviction-teaching-896831","human_ref_B":"America\u2019s healthcare system is not truly privatized though. That\u2019s the biggest problem.   Also, land of free means you\u2019re free to make your own choices. People have been born poor and made great choices and have become rich. Three things people can do to ensure they don\u2019t live in poverty: 1) graduate high school, 2) don\u2019t have kids early 3) have a job.   America is about personal choices. Not government mandating things. A lot of us think our government steps in too much and needs to get out of things. Then many sectors will correct themselves.   Also, you don\u2019t need a college education to be successful. That\u2019s the biggest lie that has been started.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1822.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o6adv","c_root_id_B":"g4okeb1","created_at_utc_A":1599743185,"created_at_utc_B":1599747109,"score_A":4,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.","human_ref_B":"For starters, our Healthcare system is NOT privatized.  We have a hybrid system, which is arguably the biggest problem.  If we had an actual true Capitalist, privatized Healthcare system, the US Government's spending on healthcare would be $0.00.  Instead, we actually spend *more* than every other nation on the planet on healthcare (per person).  Conflating that with education, those are not 'free', it's why people in Scotland (and Europe) generally pay significantly more in taxes than Americans do.  It's also worth noting that despite the 'free' education in much of Europe, the US actually has a much higher percentage of people with College degrees than the vast majority of Europe.  About 25% of the US has a Bachelor's degree, that's a higher percentage than Norway, Sweden, France, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, and Germany.  *Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.*  About 8% of US Prisoners are in private prisons.  Of all the things to point out, this one may be the most ironic, because about 15% of prisoners in Scotland are in private prisons.  So Scotland actually has a much bigger private prison issue than the US does.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Private_prison#United_Kingdom  *Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.*  Regardless of your stance on guns, I have significantly more ability to purchase firearms than you do.  Therefore, that means I have more freedom than you in this regard.  You can certainly argue over whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I'd say \"we need to restrict your freedom to make you more free\" is some Orwellian NewSpeak.  Edit:  Also, c'mon, do I really need to point out to you that Scotland arrested, convicted, and nearly jailed someone for teaching a Pug to do a Nazi salute?  https:\/\/www.newsweek.com\/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-following-hate-crime-conviction-teaching-896831","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3924.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4okeb1","c_root_id_B":"g4o9tfg","created_at_utc_A":1599747109,"created_at_utc_B":1599744231,"score_A":36,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"For starters, our Healthcare system is NOT privatized.  We have a hybrid system, which is arguably the biggest problem.  If we had an actual true Capitalist, privatized Healthcare system, the US Government's spending on healthcare would be $0.00.  Instead, we actually spend *more* than every other nation on the planet on healthcare (per person).  Conflating that with education, those are not 'free', it's why people in Scotland (and Europe) generally pay significantly more in taxes than Americans do.  It's also worth noting that despite the 'free' education in much of Europe, the US actually has a much higher percentage of people with College degrees than the vast majority of Europe.  About 25% of the US has a Bachelor's degree, that's a higher percentage than Norway, Sweden, France, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, and Germany.  *Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.*  About 8% of US Prisoners are in private prisons.  Of all the things to point out, this one may be the most ironic, because about 15% of prisoners in Scotland are in private prisons.  So Scotland actually has a much bigger private prison issue than the US does.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Private_prison#United_Kingdom  *Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.*  Regardless of your stance on guns, I have significantly more ability to purchase firearms than you do.  Therefore, that means I have more freedom than you in this regard.  You can certainly argue over whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I'd say \"we need to restrict your freedom to make you more free\" is some Orwellian NewSpeak.  Edit:  Also, c'mon, do I really need to point out to you that Scotland arrested, convicted, and nearly jailed someone for teaching a Pug to do a Nazi salute?  https:\/\/www.newsweek.com\/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-following-hate-crime-conviction-teaching-896831","human_ref_B":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2878.0,"score_ratio":12.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4odnsn","c_root_id_B":"g4ox67z","created_at_utc_A":1599745287,"created_at_utc_B":1599750415,"score_A":9,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"America\u2019s healthcare system is not truly privatized though. That\u2019s the biggest problem.   Also, land of free means you\u2019re free to make your own choices. People have been born poor and made great choices and have become rich. Three things people can do to ensure they don\u2019t live in poverty: 1) graduate high school, 2) don\u2019t have kids early 3) have a job.   America is about personal choices. Not government mandating things. A lot of us think our government steps in too much and needs to get out of things. Then many sectors will correct themselves.   Also, you don\u2019t need a college education to be successful. That\u2019s the biggest lie that has been started.","human_ref_B":"You don\u2019t understand what freedom is. You\u2019re conflating freedom and entitlements (healthcare, education, etc.). Freedom is simply the ability to do what you want with your time, money, labor, etc. Government-provided healthcare directly conflicts with basic principles of freedom because you don\u2019t get to decide what you do with your money; the government takes it and does what it wants with the money. Sure you get something for it, but that doesn\u2019t mean you are more free than an American in regards to health care.  I\u2019m not sure why you mention prisons, but even hardcore libertarians believe that people who violate others\u2019 freedom need to be punished and that society needs to be protected from people who would violate their rights by killing people, stealing their stuff, etc.   Since you mention money, yes health care and education in America is expensive. That doesn\u2019t mean we\u2019re not free. Freedom to do something does not mean an entitlement to it. We Americans have the freedom of owning guns, but that doesn\u2019t mean the government must provide all Americans a free gun. Also, it\u2019s worth noting that health care and education in America only became expensive as crap when the government began subsidizing them through Pell Grants\/federal student loans and Medicare\/Medicaid. When colleges and hospitals figured out that the government would pick up the tab, no matter how much it was, they started jacking up prices because the government would pay for it anyway. That screws over the people who can\u2019t get government assistance and can\u2019t pay for it on their own.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5128.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4ov1oi","c_root_id_B":"g4ox67z","created_at_utc_A":1599749883,"created_at_utc_B":1599750415,"score_A":5,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"How can you be land of the free if you don't have a capitalist economy? Economic freedom is a freedom.   There's two types of rights, \"positive rights\" and \"negative rights\", that you are conflating. \"Negative rights\", which are life, liberty and property. \"Positive rights\" are the rights to things such as healthcare, food or education.   The United States is traditionally super pro \"negative rights\" and doesn't view \"positive rights\" as rights. This is changing somewhat in the younger generations.  It's a different view on what rights are. If you want to debate the merit of positive rights vs negative rights, that's a different question.","human_ref_B":"You don\u2019t understand what freedom is. You\u2019re conflating freedom and entitlements (healthcare, education, etc.). Freedom is simply the ability to do what you want with your time, money, labor, etc. Government-provided healthcare directly conflicts with basic principles of freedom because you don\u2019t get to decide what you do with your money; the government takes it and does what it wants with the money. Sure you get something for it, but that doesn\u2019t mean you are more free than an American in regards to health care.  I\u2019m not sure why you mention prisons, but even hardcore libertarians believe that people who violate others\u2019 freedom need to be punished and that society needs to be protected from people who would violate their rights by killing people, stealing their stuff, etc.   Since you mention money, yes health care and education in America is expensive. That doesn\u2019t mean we\u2019re not free. Freedom to do something does not mean an entitlement to it. We Americans have the freedom of owning guns, but that doesn\u2019t mean the government must provide all Americans a free gun. Also, it\u2019s worth noting that health care and education in America only became expensive as crap when the government began subsidizing them through Pell Grants\/federal student loans and Medicare\/Medicaid. When colleges and hospitals figured out that the government would pick up the tab, no matter how much it was, they started jacking up prices because the government would pay for it anyway. That screws over the people who can\u2019t get government assistance and can\u2019t pay for it on their own.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":532.0,"score_ratio":3.6}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o6adv","c_root_id_B":"g4ox67z","created_at_utc_A":1599743185,"created_at_utc_B":1599750415,"score_A":4,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.","human_ref_B":"You don\u2019t understand what freedom is. You\u2019re conflating freedom and entitlements (healthcare, education, etc.). Freedom is simply the ability to do what you want with your time, money, labor, etc. Government-provided healthcare directly conflicts with basic principles of freedom because you don\u2019t get to decide what you do with your money; the government takes it and does what it wants with the money. Sure you get something for it, but that doesn\u2019t mean you are more free than an American in regards to health care.  I\u2019m not sure why you mention prisons, but even hardcore libertarians believe that people who violate others\u2019 freedom need to be punished and that society needs to be protected from people who would violate their rights by killing people, stealing their stuff, etc.   Since you mention money, yes health care and education in America is expensive. That doesn\u2019t mean we\u2019re not free. Freedom to do something does not mean an entitlement to it. We Americans have the freedom of owning guns, but that doesn\u2019t mean the government must provide all Americans a free gun. Also, it\u2019s worth noting that health care and education in America only became expensive as crap when the government began subsidizing them through Pell Grants\/federal student loans and Medicare\/Medicaid. When colleges and hospitals figured out that the government would pick up the tab, no matter how much it was, they started jacking up prices because the government would pay for it anyway. That screws over the people who can\u2019t get government assistance and can\u2019t pay for it on their own.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7230.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o9tfg","c_root_id_B":"g4ox67z","created_at_utc_A":1599744231,"created_at_utc_B":1599750415,"score_A":3,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","human_ref_B":"You don\u2019t understand what freedom is. You\u2019re conflating freedom and entitlements (healthcare, education, etc.). Freedom is simply the ability to do what you want with your time, money, labor, etc. Government-provided healthcare directly conflicts with basic principles of freedom because you don\u2019t get to decide what you do with your money; the government takes it and does what it wants with the money. Sure you get something for it, but that doesn\u2019t mean you are more free than an American in regards to health care.  I\u2019m not sure why you mention prisons, but even hardcore libertarians believe that people who violate others\u2019 freedom need to be punished and that society needs to be protected from people who would violate their rights by killing people, stealing their stuff, etc.   Since you mention money, yes health care and education in America is expensive. That doesn\u2019t mean we\u2019re not free. Freedom to do something does not mean an entitlement to it. We Americans have the freedom of owning guns, but that doesn\u2019t mean the government must provide all Americans a free gun. Also, it\u2019s worth noting that health care and education in America only became expensive as crap when the government began subsidizing them through Pell Grants\/federal student loans and Medicare\/Medicaid. When colleges and hospitals figured out that the government would pick up the tab, no matter how much it was, they started jacking up prices because the government would pay for it anyway. That screws over the people who can\u2019t get government assistance and can\u2019t pay for it on their own.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6184.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4p73av","c_root_id_B":"g4p7stw","created_at_utc_A":1599753078,"created_at_utc_B":1599753249,"score_A":15,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":">I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  My family came here in the early to mid 1980's from a communist country. My mom's family was so poor, they could not spare to send her to continue her education beyond middle school. They relied on temple donations and handouts to survive when they came to the US. My grandmother worked any and every job to make ends meet to support her 7 children. My mom worked 3 jobs through college. They are all fine and contributing members of society today (all have college education or technical skills, jobs, own their own homes, etc). This is not a unique or amazing story. The United States offers OPPORTUNITIES for you to change your situation, it does not offer a blanket guarantee.   &#x200B;  >In Scotland I have free education  For context, the population of Scotland is 5.5 million, and the population of Florida (used as an example later) is 21.5 million. Kindergarten through High School are free for public schools, and some states have charter schools available. Many states offer full tuition scholarships if you meet a certain Grade Point Average (GPA), test scores (ACT\/SAT) and have volunteering services (if you do not, it is 75% of tuition) - this is true in the state of Florida (Bright Futures Scholarship). There are avenues for you to afford college - I took a Navy Reserves Officer Training Corps scholarship that offered full tuition to a private university in return for a 4 year commitment in the US Navy. I owe $0 in student loans.","human_ref_B":"I think you are confusing freedom with comfort.  A freedom to me is an ability to take advantage of opportunities. A freedom of speech allows you to speak when you have something to say. A freedom to bear arms allows you to use modern firearms to defend yourself. And so on.  \u201cFreedom from debt\u201d, free education, free healthcare allow you a higher quality of life but they don\u2019t necessarily expand the horizon of opportunities (you can argue that indirectly they might, for example if you have free healthcare you are not tied to your job\u2019s health plan if you want to change your job; that is true - indirectly).  In US, the range of opportunities is just much better than in Scotland. We have massive high tech industry. Our pharma is incomparable to yours. We have space flight, solar, car manufacturing to the extent you will never, ever, have. Our best colleges are much better than yours - you do not have an equivalent of Harvard, Stanford, Columbia - places where the entire world competes for admissions. So if your \u201caverage\u201d person wants to be really good at something - they will have more opportunities, and more freedom to succeed.  Now, I do agree that the very average average bloke - would probably be much better off in Scotland. But people above average have a lot more opportunities in the US.  Edit: in my opinion, a country should not be optimized for the average. It should be optimized for above average - otherwise your best people will leave and you will be left with mediocrity - and in the long term your society will fail.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":171.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4p7stw","c_root_id_B":"g4odnsn","created_at_utc_A":1599753249,"created_at_utc_B":1599745287,"score_A":16,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I think you are confusing freedom with comfort.  A freedom to me is an ability to take advantage of opportunities. A freedom of speech allows you to speak when you have something to say. A freedom to bear arms allows you to use modern firearms to defend yourself. And so on.  \u201cFreedom from debt\u201d, free education, free healthcare allow you a higher quality of life but they don\u2019t necessarily expand the horizon of opportunities (you can argue that indirectly they might, for example if you have free healthcare you are not tied to your job\u2019s health plan if you want to change your job; that is true - indirectly).  In US, the range of opportunities is just much better than in Scotland. We have massive high tech industry. Our pharma is incomparable to yours. We have space flight, solar, car manufacturing to the extent you will never, ever, have. Our best colleges are much better than yours - you do not have an equivalent of Harvard, Stanford, Columbia - places where the entire world competes for admissions. So if your \u201caverage\u201d person wants to be really good at something - they will have more opportunities, and more freedom to succeed.  Now, I do agree that the very average average bloke - would probably be much better off in Scotland. But people above average have a lot more opportunities in the US.  Edit: in my opinion, a country should not be optimized for the average. It should be optimized for above average - otherwise your best people will leave and you will be left with mediocrity - and in the long term your society will fail.","human_ref_B":"America\u2019s healthcare system is not truly privatized though. That\u2019s the biggest problem.   Also, land of free means you\u2019re free to make your own choices. People have been born poor and made great choices and have become rich. Three things people can do to ensure they don\u2019t live in poverty: 1) graduate high school, 2) don\u2019t have kids early 3) have a job.   America is about personal choices. Not government mandating things. A lot of us think our government steps in too much and needs to get out of things. Then many sectors will correct themselves.   Also, you don\u2019t need a college education to be successful. That\u2019s the biggest lie that has been started.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7962.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4ov1oi","c_root_id_B":"g4p7stw","created_at_utc_A":1599749883,"created_at_utc_B":1599753249,"score_A":5,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"How can you be land of the free if you don't have a capitalist economy? Economic freedom is a freedom.   There's two types of rights, \"positive rights\" and \"negative rights\", that you are conflating. \"Negative rights\", which are life, liberty and property. \"Positive rights\" are the rights to things such as healthcare, food or education.   The United States is traditionally super pro \"negative rights\" and doesn't view \"positive rights\" as rights. This is changing somewhat in the younger generations.  It's a different view on what rights are. If you want to debate the merit of positive rights vs negative rights, that's a different question.","human_ref_B":"I think you are confusing freedom with comfort.  A freedom to me is an ability to take advantage of opportunities. A freedom of speech allows you to speak when you have something to say. A freedom to bear arms allows you to use modern firearms to defend yourself. And so on.  \u201cFreedom from debt\u201d, free education, free healthcare allow you a higher quality of life but they don\u2019t necessarily expand the horizon of opportunities (you can argue that indirectly they might, for example if you have free healthcare you are not tied to your job\u2019s health plan if you want to change your job; that is true - indirectly).  In US, the range of opportunities is just much better than in Scotland. We have massive high tech industry. Our pharma is incomparable to yours. We have space flight, solar, car manufacturing to the extent you will never, ever, have. Our best colleges are much better than yours - you do not have an equivalent of Harvard, Stanford, Columbia - places where the entire world competes for admissions. So if your \u201caverage\u201d person wants to be really good at something - they will have more opportunities, and more freedom to succeed.  Now, I do agree that the very average average bloke - would probably be much better off in Scotland. But people above average have a lot more opportunities in the US.  Edit: in my opinion, a country should not be optimized for the average. It should be optimized for above average - otherwise your best people will leave and you will be left with mediocrity - and in the long term your society will fail.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3366.0,"score_ratio":3.2}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o6adv","c_root_id_B":"g4p7stw","created_at_utc_A":1599743185,"created_at_utc_B":1599753249,"score_A":4,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.","human_ref_B":"I think you are confusing freedom with comfort.  A freedom to me is an ability to take advantage of opportunities. A freedom of speech allows you to speak when you have something to say. A freedom to bear arms allows you to use modern firearms to defend yourself. And so on.  \u201cFreedom from debt\u201d, free education, free healthcare allow you a higher quality of life but they don\u2019t necessarily expand the horizon of opportunities (you can argue that indirectly they might, for example if you have free healthcare you are not tied to your job\u2019s health plan if you want to change your job; that is true - indirectly).  In US, the range of opportunities is just much better than in Scotland. We have massive high tech industry. Our pharma is incomparable to yours. We have space flight, solar, car manufacturing to the extent you will never, ever, have. Our best colleges are much better than yours - you do not have an equivalent of Harvard, Stanford, Columbia - places where the entire world competes for admissions. So if your \u201caverage\u201d person wants to be really good at something - they will have more opportunities, and more freedom to succeed.  Now, I do agree that the very average average bloke - would probably be much better off in Scotland. But people above average have a lot more opportunities in the US.  Edit: in my opinion, a country should not be optimized for the average. It should be optimized for above average - otherwise your best people will leave and you will be left with mediocrity - and in the long term your society will fail.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10064.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4p7stw","c_root_id_B":"g4o9tfg","created_at_utc_A":1599753249,"created_at_utc_B":1599744231,"score_A":16,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think you are confusing freedom with comfort.  A freedom to me is an ability to take advantage of opportunities. A freedom of speech allows you to speak when you have something to say. A freedom to bear arms allows you to use modern firearms to defend yourself. And so on.  \u201cFreedom from debt\u201d, free education, free healthcare allow you a higher quality of life but they don\u2019t necessarily expand the horizon of opportunities (you can argue that indirectly they might, for example if you have free healthcare you are not tied to your job\u2019s health plan if you want to change your job; that is true - indirectly).  In US, the range of opportunities is just much better than in Scotland. We have massive high tech industry. Our pharma is incomparable to yours. We have space flight, solar, car manufacturing to the extent you will never, ever, have. Our best colleges are much better than yours - you do not have an equivalent of Harvard, Stanford, Columbia - places where the entire world competes for admissions. So if your \u201caverage\u201d person wants to be really good at something - they will have more opportunities, and more freedom to succeed.  Now, I do agree that the very average average bloke - would probably be much better off in Scotland. But people above average have a lot more opportunities in the US.  Edit: in my opinion, a country should not be optimized for the average. It should be optimized for above average - otherwise your best people will leave and you will be left with mediocrity - and in the long term your society will fail.","human_ref_B":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9018.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4p73av","c_root_id_B":"g4odnsn","created_at_utc_A":1599753078,"created_at_utc_B":1599745287,"score_A":15,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":">I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  My family came here in the early to mid 1980's from a communist country. My mom's family was so poor, they could not spare to send her to continue her education beyond middle school. They relied on temple donations and handouts to survive when they came to the US. My grandmother worked any and every job to make ends meet to support her 7 children. My mom worked 3 jobs through college. They are all fine and contributing members of society today (all have college education or technical skills, jobs, own their own homes, etc). This is not a unique or amazing story. The United States offers OPPORTUNITIES for you to change your situation, it does not offer a blanket guarantee.   &#x200B;  >In Scotland I have free education  For context, the population of Scotland is 5.5 million, and the population of Florida (used as an example later) is 21.5 million. Kindergarten through High School are free for public schools, and some states have charter schools available. Many states offer full tuition scholarships if you meet a certain Grade Point Average (GPA), test scores (ACT\/SAT) and have volunteering services (if you do not, it is 75% of tuition) - this is true in the state of Florida (Bright Futures Scholarship). There are avenues for you to afford college - I took a Navy Reserves Officer Training Corps scholarship that offered full tuition to a private university in return for a 4 year commitment in the US Navy. I owe $0 in student loans.","human_ref_B":"America\u2019s healthcare system is not truly privatized though. That\u2019s the biggest problem.   Also, land of free means you\u2019re free to make your own choices. People have been born poor and made great choices and have become rich. Three things people can do to ensure they don\u2019t live in poverty: 1) graduate high school, 2) don\u2019t have kids early 3) have a job.   America is about personal choices. Not government mandating things. A lot of us think our government steps in too much and needs to get out of things. Then many sectors will correct themselves.   Also, you don\u2019t need a college education to be successful. That\u2019s the biggest lie that has been started.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7791.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4p73av","c_root_id_B":"g4ov1oi","created_at_utc_A":1599753078,"created_at_utc_B":1599749883,"score_A":15,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  My family came here in the early to mid 1980's from a communist country. My mom's family was so poor, they could not spare to send her to continue her education beyond middle school. They relied on temple donations and handouts to survive when they came to the US. My grandmother worked any and every job to make ends meet to support her 7 children. My mom worked 3 jobs through college. They are all fine and contributing members of society today (all have college education or technical skills, jobs, own their own homes, etc). This is not a unique or amazing story. The United States offers OPPORTUNITIES for you to change your situation, it does not offer a blanket guarantee.   &#x200B;  >In Scotland I have free education  For context, the population of Scotland is 5.5 million, and the population of Florida (used as an example later) is 21.5 million. Kindergarten through High School are free for public schools, and some states have charter schools available. Many states offer full tuition scholarships if you meet a certain Grade Point Average (GPA), test scores (ACT\/SAT) and have volunteering services (if you do not, it is 75% of tuition) - this is true in the state of Florida (Bright Futures Scholarship). There are avenues for you to afford college - I took a Navy Reserves Officer Training Corps scholarship that offered full tuition to a private university in return for a 4 year commitment in the US Navy. I owe $0 in student loans.","human_ref_B":"How can you be land of the free if you don't have a capitalist economy? Economic freedom is a freedom.   There's two types of rights, \"positive rights\" and \"negative rights\", that you are conflating. \"Negative rights\", which are life, liberty and property. \"Positive rights\" are the rights to things such as healthcare, food or education.   The United States is traditionally super pro \"negative rights\" and doesn't view \"positive rights\" as rights. This is changing somewhat in the younger generations.  It's a different view on what rights are. If you want to debate the merit of positive rights vs negative rights, that's a different question.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3195.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4p73av","c_root_id_B":"g4o6adv","created_at_utc_A":1599753078,"created_at_utc_B":1599743185,"score_A":15,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  My family came here in the early to mid 1980's from a communist country. My mom's family was so poor, they could not spare to send her to continue her education beyond middle school. They relied on temple donations and handouts to survive when they came to the US. My grandmother worked any and every job to make ends meet to support her 7 children. My mom worked 3 jobs through college. They are all fine and contributing members of society today (all have college education or technical skills, jobs, own their own homes, etc). This is not a unique or amazing story. The United States offers OPPORTUNITIES for you to change your situation, it does not offer a blanket guarantee.   &#x200B;  >In Scotland I have free education  For context, the population of Scotland is 5.5 million, and the population of Florida (used as an example later) is 21.5 million. Kindergarten through High School are free for public schools, and some states have charter schools available. Many states offer full tuition scholarships if you meet a certain Grade Point Average (GPA), test scores (ACT\/SAT) and have volunteering services (if you do not, it is 75% of tuition) - this is true in the state of Florida (Bright Futures Scholarship). There are avenues for you to afford college - I took a Navy Reserves Officer Training Corps scholarship that offered full tuition to a private university in return for a 4 year commitment in the US Navy. I owe $0 in student loans.","human_ref_B":"I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9893.0,"score_ratio":3.75}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o9tfg","c_root_id_B":"g4p73av","created_at_utc_A":1599744231,"created_at_utc_B":1599753078,"score_A":3,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","human_ref_B":">I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  My family came here in the early to mid 1980's from a communist country. My mom's family was so poor, they could not spare to send her to continue her education beyond middle school. They relied on temple donations and handouts to survive when they came to the US. My grandmother worked any and every job to make ends meet to support her 7 children. My mom worked 3 jobs through college. They are all fine and contributing members of society today (all have college education or technical skills, jobs, own their own homes, etc). This is not a unique or amazing story. The United States offers OPPORTUNITIES for you to change your situation, it does not offer a blanket guarantee.   &#x200B;  >In Scotland I have free education  For context, the population of Scotland is 5.5 million, and the population of Florida (used as an example later) is 21.5 million. Kindergarten through High School are free for public schools, and some states have charter schools available. Many states offer full tuition scholarships if you meet a certain Grade Point Average (GPA), test scores (ACT\/SAT) and have volunteering services (if you do not, it is 75% of tuition) - this is true in the state of Florida (Bright Futures Scholarship). There are avenues for you to afford college - I took a Navy Reserves Officer Training Corps scholarship that offered full tuition to a private university in return for a 4 year commitment in the US Navy. I owe $0 in student loans.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8847.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4odnsn","c_root_id_B":"g4pe0nk","created_at_utc_A":1599745287,"created_at_utc_B":1599755365,"score_A":9,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"America\u2019s healthcare system is not truly privatized though. That\u2019s the biggest problem.   Also, land of free means you\u2019re free to make your own choices. People have been born poor and made great choices and have become rich. Three things people can do to ensure they don\u2019t live in poverty: 1) graduate high school, 2) don\u2019t have kids early 3) have a job.   America is about personal choices. Not government mandating things. A lot of us think our government steps in too much and needs to get out of things. Then many sectors will correct themselves.   Also, you don\u2019t need a college education to be successful. That\u2019s the biggest lie that has been started.","human_ref_B":"You are using \u201cfree\u201d and \u201cgood quality of life\u201d interchangeably when they are not the same.   It is not freedom to be forced into a specific healthcare plan mandated by the government. That is the opposite of freedom. You can argue it is more effective, but you can\u2019t argue it is a staple of \u201cfreedom\u201d.  Our prisons are not privatized. 8% of our prisoners are in private prisons.  Again, the right to bear arms is a freedom. You can argue if it\u2019s effective or necessary.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10078.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pc4w4","c_root_id_B":"g4pe0nk","created_at_utc_A":1599754691,"created_at_utc_B":1599755365,"score_A":7,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"In Scotland, you can be arrested for posting a joke on the internet. Even if that joke is making fun of Nazis.   I agree that Americans would have better and more equal opportunities if they all had healthcare and decent schools. But I don't think that's really a freedom issue. It's an external risk that is sort of orthogonal to the exercise of your rights.   You don't need to be the richest person to be free or successful, either. Anybody can seek their fortune however they choose, and you can be very successful and live well by working hard at one of the higher-paying jobs. But you need to work and compete for it. It's not the land of the free stuff. It's free in the \"wide open sandbox\" sense. You choose your quest, and try to make yourself valuable enough that someone will pay you money. You can pretty much do or say whatever you want, assuming you're not hurting anybody and the angry mobs don't hunt you down for having the wrong opinion. But you're free from the government stopping you from voicing your opinion.","human_ref_B":"You are using \u201cfree\u201d and \u201cgood quality of life\u201d interchangeably when they are not the same.   It is not freedom to be forced into a specific healthcare plan mandated by the government. That is the opposite of freedom. You can argue it is more effective, but you can\u2019t argue it is a staple of \u201cfreedom\u201d.  Our prisons are not privatized. 8% of our prisoners are in private prisons.  Again, the right to bear arms is a freedom. You can argue if it\u2019s effective or necessary.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":674.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pe0nk","c_root_id_B":"g4ov1oi","created_at_utc_A":1599755365,"created_at_utc_B":1599749883,"score_A":12,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You are using \u201cfree\u201d and \u201cgood quality of life\u201d interchangeably when they are not the same.   It is not freedom to be forced into a specific healthcare plan mandated by the government. That is the opposite of freedom. You can argue it is more effective, but you can\u2019t argue it is a staple of \u201cfreedom\u201d.  Our prisons are not privatized. 8% of our prisoners are in private prisons.  Again, the right to bear arms is a freedom. You can argue if it\u2019s effective or necessary.","human_ref_B":"How can you be land of the free if you don't have a capitalist economy? Economic freedom is a freedom.   There's two types of rights, \"positive rights\" and \"negative rights\", that you are conflating. \"Negative rights\", which are life, liberty and property. \"Positive rights\" are the rights to things such as healthcare, food or education.   The United States is traditionally super pro \"negative rights\" and doesn't view \"positive rights\" as rights. This is changing somewhat in the younger generations.  It's a different view on what rights are. If you want to debate the merit of positive rights vs negative rights, that's a different question.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5482.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o6adv","c_root_id_B":"g4pe0nk","created_at_utc_A":1599743185,"created_at_utc_B":1599755365,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.","human_ref_B":"You are using \u201cfree\u201d and \u201cgood quality of life\u201d interchangeably when they are not the same.   It is not freedom to be forced into a specific healthcare plan mandated by the government. That is the opposite of freedom. You can argue it is more effective, but you can\u2019t argue it is a staple of \u201cfreedom\u201d.  Our prisons are not privatized. 8% of our prisoners are in private prisons.  Again, the right to bear arms is a freedom. You can argue if it\u2019s effective or necessary.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12180.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pe0nk","c_root_id_B":"g4o9tfg","created_at_utc_A":1599755365,"created_at_utc_B":1599744231,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You are using \u201cfree\u201d and \u201cgood quality of life\u201d interchangeably when they are not the same.   It is not freedom to be forced into a specific healthcare plan mandated by the government. That is the opposite of freedom. You can argue it is more effective, but you can\u2019t argue it is a staple of \u201cfreedom\u201d.  Our prisons are not privatized. 8% of our prisoners are in private prisons.  Again, the right to bear arms is a freedom. You can argue if it\u2019s effective or necessary.","human_ref_B":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11134.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pe0nk","c_root_id_B":"g4pa6ri","created_at_utc_A":1599755365,"created_at_utc_B":1599754069,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You are using \u201cfree\u201d and \u201cgood quality of life\u201d interchangeably when they are not the same.   It is not freedom to be forced into a specific healthcare plan mandated by the government. That is the opposite of freedom. You can argue it is more effective, but you can\u2019t argue it is a staple of \u201cfreedom\u201d.  Our prisons are not privatized. 8% of our prisoners are in private prisons.  Again, the right to bear arms is a freedom. You can argue if it\u2019s effective or necessary.","human_ref_B":"Technically America is a free country but so are most countries. America being the land of the free is kind of like gluten free vodka.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1296.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pc4w4","c_root_id_B":"g4pg18c","created_at_utc_A":1599754691,"created_at_utc_B":1599756131,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"In Scotland, you can be arrested for posting a joke on the internet. Even if that joke is making fun of Nazis.   I agree that Americans would have better and more equal opportunities if they all had healthcare and decent schools. But I don't think that's really a freedom issue. It's an external risk that is sort of orthogonal to the exercise of your rights.   You don't need to be the richest person to be free or successful, either. Anybody can seek their fortune however they choose, and you can be very successful and live well by working hard at one of the higher-paying jobs. But you need to work and compete for it. It's not the land of the free stuff. It's free in the \"wide open sandbox\" sense. You choose your quest, and try to make yourself valuable enough that someone will pay you money. You can pretty much do or say whatever you want, assuming you're not hurting anybody and the angry mobs don't hunt you down for having the wrong opinion. But you're free from the government stopping you from voicing your opinion.","human_ref_B":"I think this just goes to the difference of how Americans define freedom vs. how Europeans do (I know we aren't all the same and there are diverging opinions).  But here, freedom is freedom from government interference. The right to live your life to the best of your abilities and to engage in transactions and activities that make your life better. The government will \"help\" to a degree, K-12 is publicly funded and financial aid for less-fortunate is readily available. But largely the outcome of your life is determined by what you put into it.  Now there are certainly many unfortunate stories of people falling on hard times not of their own fault, and we certainly could do more for them, but I strongly disagree that capitalism has gone wild.  Our freedom of speech (which is pretty unique to the world) and capitalistic nature has given the world an incredibly disproportionate amount of its culture in the last century or so, not to mention scientific achievements.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1440.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pg18c","c_root_id_B":"g4ov1oi","created_at_utc_A":1599756131,"created_at_utc_B":1599749883,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think this just goes to the difference of how Americans define freedom vs. how Europeans do (I know we aren't all the same and there are diverging opinions).  But here, freedom is freedom from government interference. The right to live your life to the best of your abilities and to engage in transactions and activities that make your life better. The government will \"help\" to a degree, K-12 is publicly funded and financial aid for less-fortunate is readily available. But largely the outcome of your life is determined by what you put into it.  Now there are certainly many unfortunate stories of people falling on hard times not of their own fault, and we certainly could do more for them, but I strongly disagree that capitalism has gone wild.  Our freedom of speech (which is pretty unique to the world) and capitalistic nature has given the world an incredibly disproportionate amount of its culture in the last century or so, not to mention scientific achievements.","human_ref_B":"How can you be land of the free if you don't have a capitalist economy? Economic freedom is a freedom.   There's two types of rights, \"positive rights\" and \"negative rights\", that you are conflating. \"Negative rights\", which are life, liberty and property. \"Positive rights\" are the rights to things such as healthcare, food or education.   The United States is traditionally super pro \"negative rights\" and doesn't view \"positive rights\" as rights. This is changing somewhat in the younger generations.  It's a different view on what rights are. If you want to debate the merit of positive rights vs negative rights, that's a different question.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6248.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o6adv","c_root_id_B":"g4pg18c","created_at_utc_A":1599743185,"created_at_utc_B":1599756131,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.","human_ref_B":"I think this just goes to the difference of how Americans define freedom vs. how Europeans do (I know we aren't all the same and there are diverging opinions).  But here, freedom is freedom from government interference. The right to live your life to the best of your abilities and to engage in transactions and activities that make your life better. The government will \"help\" to a degree, K-12 is publicly funded and financial aid for less-fortunate is readily available. But largely the outcome of your life is determined by what you put into it.  Now there are certainly many unfortunate stories of people falling on hard times not of their own fault, and we certainly could do more for them, but I strongly disagree that capitalism has gone wild.  Our freedom of speech (which is pretty unique to the world) and capitalistic nature has given the world an incredibly disproportionate amount of its culture in the last century or so, not to mention scientific achievements.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12946.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o9tfg","c_root_id_B":"g4pg18c","created_at_utc_A":1599744231,"created_at_utc_B":1599756131,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","human_ref_B":"I think this just goes to the difference of how Americans define freedom vs. how Europeans do (I know we aren't all the same and there are diverging opinions).  But here, freedom is freedom from government interference. The right to live your life to the best of your abilities and to engage in transactions and activities that make your life better. The government will \"help\" to a degree, K-12 is publicly funded and financial aid for less-fortunate is readily available. But largely the outcome of your life is determined by what you put into it.  Now there are certainly many unfortunate stories of people falling on hard times not of their own fault, and we certainly could do more for them, but I strongly disagree that capitalism has gone wild.  Our freedom of speech (which is pretty unique to the world) and capitalistic nature has given the world an incredibly disproportionate amount of its culture in the last century or so, not to mention scientific achievements.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11900.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pa6ri","c_root_id_B":"g4pg18c","created_at_utc_A":1599754069,"created_at_utc_B":1599756131,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Technically America is a free country but so are most countries. America being the land of the free is kind of like gluten free vodka.","human_ref_B":"I think this just goes to the difference of how Americans define freedom vs. how Europeans do (I know we aren't all the same and there are diverging opinions).  But here, freedom is freedom from government interference. The right to live your life to the best of your abilities and to engage in transactions and activities that make your life better. The government will \"help\" to a degree, K-12 is publicly funded and financial aid for less-fortunate is readily available. But largely the outcome of your life is determined by what you put into it.  Now there are certainly many unfortunate stories of people falling on hard times not of their own fault, and we certainly could do more for them, but I strongly disagree that capitalism has gone wild.  Our freedom of speech (which is pretty unique to the world) and capitalistic nature has given the world an incredibly disproportionate amount of its culture in the last century or so, not to mention scientific achievements.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2062.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o6adv","c_root_id_B":"g4odnsn","created_at_utc_A":1599743185,"created_at_utc_B":1599745287,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.","human_ref_B":"America\u2019s healthcare system is not truly privatized though. That\u2019s the biggest problem.   Also, land of free means you\u2019re free to make your own choices. People have been born poor and made great choices and have become rich. Three things people can do to ensure they don\u2019t live in poverty: 1) graduate high school, 2) don\u2019t have kids early 3) have a job.   America is about personal choices. Not government mandating things. A lot of us think our government steps in too much and needs to get out of things. Then many sectors will correct themselves.   Also, you don\u2019t need a college education to be successful. That\u2019s the biggest lie that has been started.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2102.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o9tfg","c_root_id_B":"g4odnsn","created_at_utc_A":1599744231,"created_at_utc_B":1599745287,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","human_ref_B":"America\u2019s healthcare system is not truly privatized though. That\u2019s the biggest problem.   Also, land of free means you\u2019re free to make your own choices. People have been born poor and made great choices and have become rich. Three things people can do to ensure they don\u2019t live in poverty: 1) graduate high school, 2) don\u2019t have kids early 3) have a job.   America is about personal choices. Not government mandating things. A lot of us think our government steps in too much and needs to get out of things. Then many sectors will correct themselves.   Also, you don\u2019t need a college education to be successful. That\u2019s the biggest lie that has been started.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1056.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pc4w4","c_root_id_B":"g4ov1oi","created_at_utc_A":1599754691,"created_at_utc_B":1599749883,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"In Scotland, you can be arrested for posting a joke on the internet. Even if that joke is making fun of Nazis.   I agree that Americans would have better and more equal opportunities if they all had healthcare and decent schools. But I don't think that's really a freedom issue. It's an external risk that is sort of orthogonal to the exercise of your rights.   You don't need to be the richest person to be free or successful, either. Anybody can seek their fortune however they choose, and you can be very successful and live well by working hard at one of the higher-paying jobs. But you need to work and compete for it. It's not the land of the free stuff. It's free in the \"wide open sandbox\" sense. You choose your quest, and try to make yourself valuable enough that someone will pay you money. You can pretty much do or say whatever you want, assuming you're not hurting anybody and the angry mobs don't hunt you down for having the wrong opinion. But you're free from the government stopping you from voicing your opinion.","human_ref_B":"How can you be land of the free if you don't have a capitalist economy? Economic freedom is a freedom.   There's two types of rights, \"positive rights\" and \"negative rights\", that you are conflating. \"Negative rights\", which are life, liberty and property. \"Positive rights\" are the rights to things such as healthcare, food or education.   The United States is traditionally super pro \"negative rights\" and doesn't view \"positive rights\" as rights. This is changing somewhat in the younger generations.  It's a different view on what rights are. If you want to debate the merit of positive rights vs negative rights, that's a different question.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4808.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o6adv","c_root_id_B":"g4pc4w4","created_at_utc_A":1599743185,"created_at_utc_B":1599754691,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.","human_ref_B":"In Scotland, you can be arrested for posting a joke on the internet. Even if that joke is making fun of Nazis.   I agree that Americans would have better and more equal opportunities if they all had healthcare and decent schools. But I don't think that's really a freedom issue. It's an external risk that is sort of orthogonal to the exercise of your rights.   You don't need to be the richest person to be free or successful, either. Anybody can seek their fortune however they choose, and you can be very successful and live well by working hard at one of the higher-paying jobs. But you need to work and compete for it. It's not the land of the free stuff. It's free in the \"wide open sandbox\" sense. You choose your quest, and try to make yourself valuable enough that someone will pay you money. You can pretty much do or say whatever you want, assuming you're not hurting anybody and the angry mobs don't hunt you down for having the wrong opinion. But you're free from the government stopping you from voicing your opinion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11506.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pc4w4","c_root_id_B":"g4o9tfg","created_at_utc_A":1599754691,"created_at_utc_B":1599744231,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"In Scotland, you can be arrested for posting a joke on the internet. Even if that joke is making fun of Nazis.   I agree that Americans would have better and more equal opportunities if they all had healthcare and decent schools. But I don't think that's really a freedom issue. It's an external risk that is sort of orthogonal to the exercise of your rights.   You don't need to be the richest person to be free or successful, either. Anybody can seek their fortune however they choose, and you can be very successful and live well by working hard at one of the higher-paying jobs. But you need to work and compete for it. It's not the land of the free stuff. It's free in the \"wide open sandbox\" sense. You choose your quest, and try to make yourself valuable enough that someone will pay you money. You can pretty much do or say whatever you want, assuming you're not hurting anybody and the angry mobs don't hunt you down for having the wrong opinion. But you're free from the government stopping you from voicing your opinion.","human_ref_B":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10460.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pc4w4","c_root_id_B":"g4pa6ri","created_at_utc_A":1599754691,"created_at_utc_B":1599754069,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In Scotland, you can be arrested for posting a joke on the internet. Even if that joke is making fun of Nazis.   I agree that Americans would have better and more equal opportunities if they all had healthcare and decent schools. But I don't think that's really a freedom issue. It's an external risk that is sort of orthogonal to the exercise of your rights.   You don't need to be the richest person to be free or successful, either. Anybody can seek their fortune however they choose, and you can be very successful and live well by working hard at one of the higher-paying jobs. But you need to work and compete for it. It's not the land of the free stuff. It's free in the \"wide open sandbox\" sense. You choose your quest, and try to make yourself valuable enough that someone will pay you money. You can pretty much do or say whatever you want, assuming you're not hurting anybody and the angry mobs don't hunt you down for having the wrong opinion. But you're free from the government stopping you from voicing your opinion.","human_ref_B":"Technically America is a free country but so are most countries. America being the land of the free is kind of like gluten free vodka.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":622.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4ov1oi","c_root_id_B":"g4o6adv","created_at_utc_A":1599749883,"created_at_utc_B":1599743185,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"How can you be land of the free if you don't have a capitalist economy? Economic freedom is a freedom.   There's two types of rights, \"positive rights\" and \"negative rights\", that you are conflating. \"Negative rights\", which are life, liberty and property. \"Positive rights\" are the rights to things such as healthcare, food or education.   The United States is traditionally super pro \"negative rights\" and doesn't view \"positive rights\" as rights. This is changing somewhat in the younger generations.  It's a different view on what rights are. If you want to debate the merit of positive rights vs negative rights, that's a different question.","human_ref_B":"I guess certain cultures have opposong views on freedom. Coming from Europe myself I do agree with all your points, but from various conversations with Americans they find socialized healthcare and gun control less free.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6698.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4ov1oi","c_root_id_B":"g4o9tfg","created_at_utc_A":1599749883,"created_at_utc_B":1599744231,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"How can you be land of the free if you don't have a capitalist economy? Economic freedom is a freedom.   There's two types of rights, \"positive rights\" and \"negative rights\", that you are conflating. \"Negative rights\", which are life, liberty and property. \"Positive rights\" are the rights to things such as healthcare, food or education.   The United States is traditionally super pro \"negative rights\" and doesn't view \"positive rights\" as rights. This is changing somewhat in the younger generations.  It's a different view on what rights are. If you want to debate the merit of positive rights vs negative rights, that's a different question.","human_ref_B":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5652.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o9tfg","c_root_id_B":"g4pnw7b","created_at_utc_A":1599744231,"created_at_utc_B":1599759053,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","human_ref_B":"Freedom does not necessarily guarantee a certain minimum standard of living for everyone in a free society - it might even suggest the opposite. After all, a free society would allow you to abridge your own freedoms.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14822.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pa6ri","c_root_id_B":"g4pnw7b","created_at_utc_A":1599754069,"created_at_utc_B":1599759053,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Technically America is a free country but so are most countries. America being the land of the free is kind of like gluten free vodka.","human_ref_B":"Freedom does not necessarily guarantee a certain minimum standard of living for everyone in a free society - it might even suggest the opposite. After all, a free society would allow you to abridge your own freedoms.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4984.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pgf8l","c_root_id_B":"g4pnw7b","created_at_utc_A":1599756263,"created_at_utc_B":1599759053,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It sounds like you\u2019re basing your opinion off of the news and internet and not facts","human_ref_B":"Freedom does not necessarily guarantee a certain minimum standard of living for everyone in a free society - it might even suggest the opposite. After all, a free society would allow you to abridge your own freedoms.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2790.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pnk6j","c_root_id_B":"g4pnw7b","created_at_utc_A":1599758933,"created_at_utc_B":1599759053,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The average person in america is pretty well off and another thing I think a lot of people forget is in america we have the best quality of healthcare and contrary to contrary believe we don\u2019t let people die even if you can\u2019t pay you get treatment","human_ref_B":"Freedom does not necessarily guarantee a certain minimum standard of living for everyone in a free society - it might even suggest the opposite. After all, a free society would allow you to abridge your own freedoms.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":120.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4o9tfg","c_root_id_B":"g4upqux","created_at_utc_A":1599744231,"created_at_utc_B":1599851224,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Well, this isn\u2019t exactly true. We are free to be poor and improverished just as we are free to be wealthy.   We have millions of people, large swaths of entire states where people lost most of their teeth from the meth and live in a junk ass trailer, and have to cut back smoking for a few days every month to afford to buy a tank of gas for their 20 year old shit box, but if you ask them, they would probably tell you they are free as birds.","human_ref_B":"Median income in the US is over twice as much as Scotland, also the percent paid in income taxes is less in the US, so wages in the US are much higher.  About 2\/3 of US high school graduates go to college (that they have to pay for) and about 1\/4 of Scottish graduates go to university for free.  The US could afford to make college free if admissions standards were changed to be as strict as Scotland's.  \\- The median income in Scotland is about $29,000 (converted from 24,400 euro); the median income in the US is about $62,000.  \\- 23.3% of Scottish 18 year olds go to university.  \\- 67% of US 18 year olds go to college , about a third (of these) go to 2 year programs.  &#x200B;  The US offers a far better chance of being free than Scotland, at least in terms of economics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":106993.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4upqux","c_root_id_B":"g4pa6ri","created_at_utc_A":1599851224,"created_at_utc_B":1599754069,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Median income in the US is over twice as much as Scotland, also the percent paid in income taxes is less in the US, so wages in the US are much higher.  About 2\/3 of US high school graduates go to college (that they have to pay for) and about 1\/4 of Scottish graduates go to university for free.  The US could afford to make college free if admissions standards were changed to be as strict as Scotland's.  \\- The median income in Scotland is about $29,000 (converted from 24,400 euro); the median income in the US is about $62,000.  \\- 23.3% of Scottish 18 year olds go to university.  \\- 67% of US 18 year olds go to college , about a third (of these) go to 2 year programs.  &#x200B;  The US offers a far better chance of being free than Scotland, at least in terms of economics.","human_ref_B":"Technically America is a free country but so are most countries. America being the land of the free is kind of like gluten free vodka.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":97155.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pgf8l","c_root_id_B":"g4upqux","created_at_utc_A":1599756263,"created_at_utc_B":1599851224,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It sounds like you\u2019re basing your opinion off of the news and internet and not facts","human_ref_B":"Median income in the US is over twice as much as Scotland, also the percent paid in income taxes is less in the US, so wages in the US are much higher.  About 2\/3 of US high school graduates go to college (that they have to pay for) and about 1\/4 of Scottish graduates go to university for free.  The US could afford to make college free if admissions standards were changed to be as strict as Scotland's.  \\- The median income in Scotland is about $29,000 (converted from 24,400 euro); the median income in the US is about $62,000.  \\- 23.3% of Scottish 18 year olds go to university.  \\- 67% of US 18 year olds go to college , about a third (of these) go to 2 year programs.  &#x200B;  The US offers a far better chance of being free than Scotland, at least in terms of economics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":94961.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4pnk6j","c_root_id_B":"g4upqux","created_at_utc_A":1599758933,"created_at_utc_B":1599851224,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The average person in america is pretty well off and another thing I think a lot of people forget is in america we have the best quality of healthcare and contrary to contrary believe we don\u2019t let people die even if you can\u2019t pay you get treatment","human_ref_B":"Median income in the US is over twice as much as Scotland, also the percent paid in income taxes is less in the US, so wages in the US are much higher.  About 2\/3 of US high school graduates go to college (that they have to pay for) and about 1\/4 of Scottish graduates go to university for free.  The US could afford to make college free if admissions standards were changed to be as strict as Scotland's.  \\- The median income in Scotland is about $29,000 (converted from 24,400 euro); the median income in the US is about $62,000.  \\- 23.3% of Scottish 18 year olds go to university.  \\- 67% of US 18 year olds go to college , about a third (of these) go to 2 year programs.  &#x200B;  The US offers a far better chance of being free than Scotland, at least in terms of economics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":92291.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4upqux","c_root_id_B":"g4qxixh","created_at_utc_A":1599851224,"created_at_utc_B":1599771198,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Median income in the US is over twice as much as Scotland, also the percent paid in income taxes is less in the US, so wages in the US are much higher.  About 2\/3 of US high school graduates go to college (that they have to pay for) and about 1\/4 of Scottish graduates go to university for free.  The US could afford to make college free if admissions standards were changed to be as strict as Scotland's.  \\- The median income in Scotland is about $29,000 (converted from 24,400 euro); the median income in the US is about $62,000.  \\- 23.3% of Scottish 18 year olds go to university.  \\- 67% of US 18 year olds go to college , about a third (of these) go to 2 year programs.  &#x200B;  The US offers a far better chance of being free than Scotland, at least in terms of economics.","human_ref_B":"We don\u2019t even have capitalism. We have corporate payouts that keep competing companies dead and larger companies that bribe corrupt politicians in business.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":80026.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4w9na9","c_root_id_B":"g4pa6ri","created_at_utc_A":1599880734,"created_at_utc_B":1599754069,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I  believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where  you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you  have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s  education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.   Nothing is free. I'm from Canada and we have \"free\" healthcare. Guess why our taxes are so much? \"the amount of money spent on health care by Canada's governments is equivalent to about two-thirds of all personal income taxes. \" Citation  Let's also talk about \"you get what you pay for\". In Canada the wait times are absolutely disgusting and the  rich go to the US for treatment because they can see the doctors they want, when they want. It doesn't matter how rich you are in Canada, the system has a triage queue system. My brother died of cancer because he couldn't get in to see a doctor until it was too late. My mom is on the same road. My dad lives in a province that doesn't have a decent respirologist, so he is suffering all the time. Yeah, that \"free\" health care is really good, isn't it?  Let's talk about how education is \"free\" in that property taxes pay for it up until you finish secondary education and the government pays less each year for post-secondary education each year as they do not have the money to feed all of these systems. Property taxes are becoming so high that if we didn't have low interest and free money right now for mortgages, the majority of home owners couldn't keep up with the annual tax. University tuition fees have gone up each year. It is 5x more expensive today than when I got my degree, but nothing of value has changed. What changed is the government cut back what they give post-secondary institutions in terms of grants. Why? People hate paying taxes and something has to give.  I am not saying the American system is better, but your argument that your system is better is also false. I don't support the American system, but with market rules, the market will dictate the value. Universities cannot go on forever charging $50k a year in tuition, eventually the market will dictate that the value isn't there and universities will have to come back to a more realistic tuition amount. Their healthcare system puts the cost on private insurance and companies, and the poorest people usually qualify for federal healthcare assistance.  I would rather pay less taxes, in the case of America compared to Canada it is maybe 20-30% less tax overall each year. Compared to many socialist European countries the number is more like 50-60% less tax each year.  America isn't perfect, but their system puts more tax money into the workers hands, and that is something I can support.","human_ref_B":"Technically America is a free country but so are most countries. America being the land of the free is kind of like gluten free vodka.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":126665.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4w9na9","c_root_id_B":"g4pgf8l","created_at_utc_A":1599880734,"created_at_utc_B":1599756263,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I  believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where  you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you  have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s  education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.   Nothing is free. I'm from Canada and we have \"free\" healthcare. Guess why our taxes are so much? \"the amount of money spent on health care by Canada's governments is equivalent to about two-thirds of all personal income taxes. \" Citation  Let's also talk about \"you get what you pay for\". In Canada the wait times are absolutely disgusting and the  rich go to the US for treatment because they can see the doctors they want, when they want. It doesn't matter how rich you are in Canada, the system has a triage queue system. My brother died of cancer because he couldn't get in to see a doctor until it was too late. My mom is on the same road. My dad lives in a province that doesn't have a decent respirologist, so he is suffering all the time. Yeah, that \"free\" health care is really good, isn't it?  Let's talk about how education is \"free\" in that property taxes pay for it up until you finish secondary education and the government pays less each year for post-secondary education each year as they do not have the money to feed all of these systems. Property taxes are becoming so high that if we didn't have low interest and free money right now for mortgages, the majority of home owners couldn't keep up with the annual tax. University tuition fees have gone up each year. It is 5x more expensive today than when I got my degree, but nothing of value has changed. What changed is the government cut back what they give post-secondary institutions in terms of grants. Why? People hate paying taxes and something has to give.  I am not saying the American system is better, but your argument that your system is better is also false. I don't support the American system, but with market rules, the market will dictate the value. Universities cannot go on forever charging $50k a year in tuition, eventually the market will dictate that the value isn't there and universities will have to come back to a more realistic tuition amount. Their healthcare system puts the cost on private insurance and companies, and the poorest people usually qualify for federal healthcare assistance.  I would rather pay less taxes, in the case of America compared to Canada it is maybe 20-30% less tax overall each year. Compared to many socialist European countries the number is more like 50-60% less tax each year.  America isn't perfect, but their system puts more tax money into the workers hands, and that is something I can support.","human_ref_B":"It sounds like you\u2019re basing your opinion off of the news and internet and not facts","labels":1,"seconds_difference":124471.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4w9na9","c_root_id_B":"g4pnk6j","created_at_utc_A":1599880734,"created_at_utc_B":1599758933,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I  believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where  you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you  have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s  education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.   Nothing is free. I'm from Canada and we have \"free\" healthcare. Guess why our taxes are so much? \"the amount of money spent on health care by Canada's governments is equivalent to about two-thirds of all personal income taxes. \" Citation  Let's also talk about \"you get what you pay for\". In Canada the wait times are absolutely disgusting and the  rich go to the US for treatment because they can see the doctors they want, when they want. It doesn't matter how rich you are in Canada, the system has a triage queue system. My brother died of cancer because he couldn't get in to see a doctor until it was too late. My mom is on the same road. My dad lives in a province that doesn't have a decent respirologist, so he is suffering all the time. Yeah, that \"free\" health care is really good, isn't it?  Let's talk about how education is \"free\" in that property taxes pay for it up until you finish secondary education and the government pays less each year for post-secondary education each year as they do not have the money to feed all of these systems. Property taxes are becoming so high that if we didn't have low interest and free money right now for mortgages, the majority of home owners couldn't keep up with the annual tax. University tuition fees have gone up each year. It is 5x more expensive today than when I got my degree, but nothing of value has changed. What changed is the government cut back what they give post-secondary institutions in terms of grants. Why? People hate paying taxes and something has to give.  I am not saying the American system is better, but your argument that your system is better is also false. I don't support the American system, but with market rules, the market will dictate the value. Universities cannot go on forever charging $50k a year in tuition, eventually the market will dictate that the value isn't there and universities will have to come back to a more realistic tuition amount. Their healthcare system puts the cost on private insurance and companies, and the poorest people usually qualify for federal healthcare assistance.  I would rather pay less taxes, in the case of America compared to Canada it is maybe 20-30% less tax overall each year. Compared to many socialist European countries the number is more like 50-60% less tax each year.  America isn't perfect, but their system puts more tax money into the workers hands, and that is something I can support.","human_ref_B":"The average person in america is pretty well off and another thing I think a lot of people forget is in america we have the best quality of healthcare and contrary to contrary believe we don\u2019t let people die even if you can\u2019t pay you get treatment","labels":1,"seconds_difference":121801.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"iq2or7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: America is not land of the free unless you\u2019re either already financially well off, or the small % of people who get rich. Growing up I always thought America was the coolest and wanted to live there (based on American music, TV, movies, etc.) however now I\u2019m older my view has changed a lot and this is no longer the case.  My stance is purely comparing America to my home country (Scotland).  I now believe America is capitalism gone wild, which is great if you\u2019re rich and successful already, but if you\u2019re not it\u2019s a rigged system you\u2019re unlikely to beat.  In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.  Furthermore, in America not only is healthcare not free, but it\u2019s so privatised doctors have ulterior motives in recommending treatment as they have deals to use certain medications, which means their recommendations cannot be viewed as unbiased.  I believe this is, in part, what lead to the opioid crisis America is currently in.  Similarly, your prisons are privatised which means they don\u2019t have a vested interest in reforming you, but rather in keeping you behind bars to make as much profit as possible.  Regardless of my stance on guns I believe that the presumption that people could have guns makes your police more jittery leading to unnecessary shootings, which obviously are non existent here, and our police are generally viewed as civil servants, not soldiers.  Obviously America is a world super power and leads the way in a lot of things, but I believe as a random person of average health, average intelligence, and average income, if you were plucked out the air and dropped in either America or Scotland you\u2019d have a much better chance of \u201cfreedom\u201d (in terms of actual freedoms such as freedom from debt, freedom from incarceration, freedom to get educated, freedom to be healthy, etc.) in Scotland (or other similar western first world nations) than America.","c_root_id_A":"g4qxixh","c_root_id_B":"g4w9na9","created_at_utc_A":1599771198,"created_at_utc_B":1599880734,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"We don\u2019t even have capitalism. We have corporate payouts that keep competing companies dead and larger companies that bribe corrupt politicians in business.","human_ref_B":"> In Scotland I have free education and free healthcare - 2 things I  believe are essential to a true land of the free.  Regardless where  you\u2019re born (I was born somewhere between lower and middle class), you  have the ability to succeed as medical bills or saving for a child\u2019s  education won\u2019t bankrupt you, whereas in America that isn\u2019t the case.   Nothing is free. I'm from Canada and we have \"free\" healthcare. Guess why our taxes are so much? \"the amount of money spent on health care by Canada's governments is equivalent to about two-thirds of all personal income taxes. \" Citation  Let's also talk about \"you get what you pay for\". In Canada the wait times are absolutely disgusting and the  rich go to the US for treatment because they can see the doctors they want, when they want. It doesn't matter how rich you are in Canada, the system has a triage queue system. My brother died of cancer because he couldn't get in to see a doctor until it was too late. My mom is on the same road. My dad lives in a province that doesn't have a decent respirologist, so he is suffering all the time. Yeah, that \"free\" health care is really good, isn't it?  Let's talk about how education is \"free\" in that property taxes pay for it up until you finish secondary education and the government pays less each year for post-secondary education each year as they do not have the money to feed all of these systems. Property taxes are becoming so high that if we didn't have low interest and free money right now for mortgages, the majority of home owners couldn't keep up with the annual tax. University tuition fees have gone up each year. It is 5x more expensive today than when I got my degree, but nothing of value has changed. What changed is the government cut back what they give post-secondary institutions in terms of grants. Why? People hate paying taxes and something has to give.  I am not saying the American system is better, but your argument that your system is better is also false. I don't support the American system, but with market rules, the market will dictate the value. Universities cannot go on forever charging $50k a year in tuition, eventually the market will dictate that the value isn't there and universities will have to come back to a more realistic tuition amount. Their healthcare system puts the cost on private insurance and companies, and the poorest people usually qualify for federal healthcare assistance.  I would rather pay less taxes, in the case of America compared to Canada it is maybe 20-30% less tax overall each year. Compared to many socialist European countries the number is more like 50-60% less tax each year.  America isn't perfect, but their system puts more tax money into the workers hands, and that is something I can support.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":109536.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"37956u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Whenever younger folks utter the phrase \"respect is earned, not given\" I can't help but understand it as a childish and short sighted attempt to undermine their elders. While I understand the general principle that you're not necessarily owed respect because of your age, I find the idea of continuously \"earning\" the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous. It should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons (the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable). Now, I'm in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make. I think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force. Nor am I denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can.   However, I could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me. Neither can I see a reason to prove myself to younger people today. I expect respect the same way my father or professors did. Not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you'd ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did. As such, they are not your peers.   Simply put, I find this phrase (\"respect is earned, not given\") is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason. To my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions:   1) **Older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself isn't worthy of respect.** I do agree that age by itself isn't a quality worthy of respect, but I don't think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either. Experience, I believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons. It's not a stretch to assume they've seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  2) **Showing respect and deference to others cost me something.** Respect is free. This stems from a lack of humility. It completely free to respect someone. The only thing holding people back is their ego. Of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self. I know I did.  3) **I know these people are whether or not they're deserving of my respect.** Assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake. Relating to the second point, what's the price of respecting someone by default ? Worst case scenario, you change your mind later on. Best case scenario, you've done the right thing.   4) **You need to prove yourself.** False. Plenty of people \"proved themselves\" already and they shouldn't need to do it again. For instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason. Getting a PhD isn't a walk in the park. Chances are they've been judged by better people than you already. I do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to \"earn respect\".   As such, I think one would be better served by the idea that \"respect can be lost\" rather than \"respect should be earned\". CMV.  ____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"crkqw0m","c_root_id_B":"crku1nj","created_at_utc_A":1432595758,"created_at_utc_B":1432601936,"score_A":8,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"So I've distilled what you wrote down to three points:  1) **Respect costs nothing.**   2) **Experience deserves respect.**   3) **If you've proved yourself, you shouldn't need to prove yourself again.** (This is more what respect buys you than not needing to give respect, but it's related).   Addressing these points:   1) **If respect costs you nothing, why don't you respect everyone?** Assuming I'm a more junior, inexperienced person, why doesn't the experienced person respect me equally? Why do people spend so much time and money to earn credentials which are supposed to equate to respect in their fields?  The answer to these points is that respect does cost me something. We don't have the luxury, with our limited time on this planet, to evaluate all corners of a decision. When someone whom I respect tells me something, I rank it higher in my decision making process. That creates an opportunity cost corresponding with any other decisions I might have made. If that more experienced person was wrong, I've suffered in some way. People will take advantage of being respected to further themselves. Look at politicians or religious figures that charge large sums of money for speaking privileges etc. How I use my respect influences my limited resources including how I spend my time; it certainly isn't free.  2) If you accept my first point that respect does cost me something, then we have to assume it's a somewhat fixed resource. **If experience == respect, then I'd have no choice how to spend that respect.** Take two politicians who have been in office the same amount of time. Chances are, you respect one more than the other; why?   Because one of them was likely right more or made decisions which you agreed with more. That means that not all experience is the same. There is some experience which is of higher quality than other experience. So let's say we work for the same company across teams and you've been around more than I have, you could say you've had more projects than I have, thus experience, but I've been right more. You've kept your business around, but it's limping more often than not. Is your experience as good as mine if I've been right a higher percentage? Should I defer to you? Heck, even if you were right as often as I was - I don't know your motives, the only ones I know are my own. The only experience I can truly count on is a shared personal experience, like working together over the years.  3) **If you only had to prove yourself once, you'd only ever have one assignment in school.** You'd only have one project at work before being promoted. A general would only have to fight one battle in war. You'd only have to go on a single date before being married.   The reality is that you prove yourself over and over again, everyday. Athletes that were stars yesterday are duds tomorrow. Faithful spouses cheat. Bosses that pushed the boundaries of a business fail to adapt with the times. Respect make make it easier to prove yourself each time a challenge comes along, but you never stop. When you stop, you've already lost that respect. You've already proven you're not worthy.","human_ref_B":"One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that skills tend to be less transferable then we assume.  A person who spends thousands of hours practicing and improving their ability to play chess doesn't actually improve their ability to remember strings of numbers.  They might be able to recite back the last 15 moves of the game they're playing, or have the entire board pictured in their head as they play blind folded, yet give them non-related memory tasks and they are no better then average.  Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that when it comes to many skills, people tend to just stop improving after a while unless they put in deliberate effort.  The easiest example of this is typing speed.  People get better as they type more for a while, and then tend to stall at a relatively low speed unless they deliberately pursue something like typing lessons.  When you say that age should automatically equal respect, you bake in the assumption that the older you are, the more experienced you are.  What you neglect to account for though is that experience may only matter in a relatively narrow set of situations.  Let's say I own a bar.  If I ask my grandparents how I should market that bar, I'm sure they'll have opinions to give me.  If I ask a guy who has spent the last 2 years studying bar-marketing, he'll also have opinions to give me.  My grandparents have a lot more general life experience, but the marketer specializing in this field is clearly the better person to defer to.  Let's say instead of a bar, I have a tech company.  We're a software-as-a-service outfit specializing in text-message based marketing.  If I ask a group of 60 year old advertising agency executives how to market this, and then I ask a group of 20-somethings who've been doing online marketing for 3 years how to market this, I'm likely to get very different answers.  The older advertising agency executives might have 30 years each in advertising behind them.  They've done radio, TV, direct mail, etc.  The younger web solutions group may only have 3 years each, specializing in cost-per-click, web copywriting, web design and usability.  I think both groups would have important insights, but I would never ignore the younger web-focused group just because the ad agency has been around 10 times longer.  The younger group has more experience with situations very close to my problem, whereas the older group has general, broad-based experience but may or may not understand the nuances of this specific medium.  So how does this tie back into what your saying?  When it comes to ethical and personal choices, very few people deliberately practice to improve, and so I would expect people's talent there to peak at a relatively young age.  I wouldn't expect a 50 year old to automatically be a better authority on moral issues then a 25 year old.  When it comes to business or work decisions, although people gain a lot of experience in a certain set of situations, I'm not convinced the skills gained 'transfer' as much as we intuitively believe.  Given all that, there is some merit to the idea that you should only automatically defer to older people in some area if they have a legitiment claim to closely-related expertise.  Now young people who have no closely-related expertise are in a similar no-automatic respect situation, and if your going to be working together, there is a strong argument to be made that if they don't know very much, they should defer up the hierarchy.  But that's not an age based deference, that's a position based deference.  That's not so much due to some owed respect, rather that is the case for efficiency reasons.  If everyone argues with their supervisors whenever they kind of vaguely suspect they know better, then they will waste a lot of time and energy doing non-productive things.  Even if the more junior person is right, if the issue is such a marginal one as to make no real difference, then it's not an issue worth bringing up.  edit: To quickly add to this, the times I've most often witnessed blatant disregard for the respect deserved to a position was in university classes when mature students were present and monopolizing a professors time during class, and work situations where a younger person is supervising an older person.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6178.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"37956u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Whenever younger folks utter the phrase \"respect is earned, not given\" I can't help but understand it as a childish and short sighted attempt to undermine their elders. While I understand the general principle that you're not necessarily owed respect because of your age, I find the idea of continuously \"earning\" the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous. It should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons (the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable). Now, I'm in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make. I think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force. Nor am I denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can.   However, I could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me. Neither can I see a reason to prove myself to younger people today. I expect respect the same way my father or professors did. Not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you'd ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did. As such, they are not your peers.   Simply put, I find this phrase (\"respect is earned, not given\") is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason. To my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions:   1) **Older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself isn't worthy of respect.** I do agree that age by itself isn't a quality worthy of respect, but I don't think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either. Experience, I believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons. It's not a stretch to assume they've seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  2) **Showing respect and deference to others cost me something.** Respect is free. This stems from a lack of humility. It completely free to respect someone. The only thing holding people back is their ego. Of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self. I know I did.  3) **I know these people are whether or not they're deserving of my respect.** Assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake. Relating to the second point, what's the price of respecting someone by default ? Worst case scenario, you change your mind later on. Best case scenario, you've done the right thing.   4) **You need to prove yourself.** False. Plenty of people \"proved themselves\" already and they shouldn't need to do it again. For instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason. Getting a PhD isn't a walk in the park. Chances are they've been judged by better people than you already. I do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to \"earn respect\".   As such, I think one would be better served by the idea that \"respect can be lost\" rather than \"respect should be earned\". CMV.  ____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"crktasi","c_root_id_B":"crku1nj","created_at_utc_A":1432600505,"created_at_utc_B":1432601936,"score_A":2,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":">Not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you'd ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did. As such, they are not your peers.  Yes, that is what young people are objecting to: the idea that simple time on the planet demands deference (by which I assume you mean that the older person's view is considered valid and reasonable unless proved false).  >to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason  Well, let's distinguish groups for a moment.  Because as I see it, you're treating three groups as being the same thing.  (1).  People who have established themselves in the area they're discussing (so a professor of public health talking about Obamacare)  (2).  People who have established themselves in an unrelated area (a professor of physics talking about Obamacare)  (3).  People who are older but do not otherwise have establishing credentials.  Your argument seems to be that group (3) deserves deference because groups (1) and probably (2) deserve it.  >Experience, I believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons. It's not a stretch to assume they've seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  But that experience would need to be relevant and established.  Otherwise your argument is that simply being alive is experience, and thus that age by itself is worthy of respect.  To wit, a 23-year-old law school student knows more about the dormant commerce clause than a sixty-year-old steel mill foreman.  The latter's life experience is irrelevant to that discussion.  >2) Showing respect and deference to others cost me something. Respect is free. This stems from a lack of humility. It completely free to respect someone. The only thing holding people back is their ego. Of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self. I know I did.  Except your argument isn't a neutral version of respect where we accept that everyone can have a different opinion and there's really nothing age has to do with that.  Your argument is for *deference*, which would mean the younger person submits on the issue to the older person.  That *does* cost something if the issue is either (a) the younger person believes he has a better way to do things, or (b) the younger person believes he is right and the older person is wrong.  If that weren't true, you wouldn't be posting a CMV, since your logic says that you \"deferring\" to me costs you nothing.  >Plenty of people \"proved themselves\" already and they shouldn't need to do it again. For instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason. Getting a PhD isn't a walk in the park. Chances are they've been judged by better people than you already. I do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to \"earn respect\".  And in cases where that's true, the person can say \"oh, and I also have my Ph.D in the subject we're discussing.\"  Again, you're treating people with credentials and people without credentials like they're the same group.  >Except the argument's merit can very be based on passed experience. Something older people generally have more of.  1.  Past experience, not passed.  2.  No, the merit of the argument is the merit of the argument.  And an argument based on \"I'm old and in my experience X is true\" is a meritless argument.","human_ref_B":"One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that skills tend to be less transferable then we assume.  A person who spends thousands of hours practicing and improving their ability to play chess doesn't actually improve their ability to remember strings of numbers.  They might be able to recite back the last 15 moves of the game they're playing, or have the entire board pictured in their head as they play blind folded, yet give them non-related memory tasks and they are no better then average.  Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that when it comes to many skills, people tend to just stop improving after a while unless they put in deliberate effort.  The easiest example of this is typing speed.  People get better as they type more for a while, and then tend to stall at a relatively low speed unless they deliberately pursue something like typing lessons.  When you say that age should automatically equal respect, you bake in the assumption that the older you are, the more experienced you are.  What you neglect to account for though is that experience may only matter in a relatively narrow set of situations.  Let's say I own a bar.  If I ask my grandparents how I should market that bar, I'm sure they'll have opinions to give me.  If I ask a guy who has spent the last 2 years studying bar-marketing, he'll also have opinions to give me.  My grandparents have a lot more general life experience, but the marketer specializing in this field is clearly the better person to defer to.  Let's say instead of a bar, I have a tech company.  We're a software-as-a-service outfit specializing in text-message based marketing.  If I ask a group of 60 year old advertising agency executives how to market this, and then I ask a group of 20-somethings who've been doing online marketing for 3 years how to market this, I'm likely to get very different answers.  The older advertising agency executives might have 30 years each in advertising behind them.  They've done radio, TV, direct mail, etc.  The younger web solutions group may only have 3 years each, specializing in cost-per-click, web copywriting, web design and usability.  I think both groups would have important insights, but I would never ignore the younger web-focused group just because the ad agency has been around 10 times longer.  The younger group has more experience with situations very close to my problem, whereas the older group has general, broad-based experience but may or may not understand the nuances of this specific medium.  So how does this tie back into what your saying?  When it comes to ethical and personal choices, very few people deliberately practice to improve, and so I would expect people's talent there to peak at a relatively young age.  I wouldn't expect a 50 year old to automatically be a better authority on moral issues then a 25 year old.  When it comes to business or work decisions, although people gain a lot of experience in a certain set of situations, I'm not convinced the skills gained 'transfer' as much as we intuitively believe.  Given all that, there is some merit to the idea that you should only automatically defer to older people in some area if they have a legitiment claim to closely-related expertise.  Now young people who have no closely-related expertise are in a similar no-automatic respect situation, and if your going to be working together, there is a strong argument to be made that if they don't know very much, they should defer up the hierarchy.  But that's not an age based deference, that's a position based deference.  That's not so much due to some owed respect, rather that is the case for efficiency reasons.  If everyone argues with their supervisors whenever they kind of vaguely suspect they know better, then they will waste a lot of time and energy doing non-productive things.  Even if the more junior person is right, if the issue is such a marginal one as to make no real difference, then it's not an issue worth bringing up.  edit: To quickly add to this, the times I've most often witnessed blatant disregard for the respect deserved to a position was in university classes when mature students were present and monopolizing a professors time during class, and work situations where a younger person is supervising an older person.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1431.0,"score_ratio":8.0}
+{"post_id":"37956u","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Whenever younger folks utter the phrase \"respect is earned, not given\" I can't help but understand it as a childish and short sighted attempt to undermine their elders. While I understand the general principle that you're not necessarily owed respect because of your age, I find the idea of continuously \"earning\" the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous. It should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons (the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable). Now, I'm in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make. I think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force. Nor am I denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can.   However, I could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me. Neither can I see a reason to prove myself to younger people today. I expect respect the same way my father or professors did. Not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you'd ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did. As such, they are not your peers.   Simply put, I find this phrase (\"respect is earned, not given\") is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason. To my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions:   1) **Older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself isn't worthy of respect.** I do agree that age by itself isn't a quality worthy of respect, but I don't think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either. Experience, I believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons. It's not a stretch to assume they've seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.  2) **Showing respect and deference to others cost me something.** Respect is free. This stems from a lack of humility. It completely free to respect someone. The only thing holding people back is their ego. Of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self. I know I did.  3) **I know these people are whether or not they're deserving of my respect.** Assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake. Relating to the second point, what's the price of respecting someone by default ? Worst case scenario, you change your mind later on. Best case scenario, you've done the right thing.   4) **You need to prove yourself.** False. Plenty of people \"proved themselves\" already and they shouldn't need to do it again. For instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason. Getting a PhD isn't a walk in the park. Chances are they've been judged by better people than you already. I do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to \"earn respect\".   As such, I think one would be better served by the idea that \"respect can be lost\" rather than \"respect should be earned\". CMV.  ____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"crktrll","c_root_id_B":"crku1nj","created_at_utc_A":1432601417,"created_at_utc_B":1432601936,"score_A":2,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"What exactly are you defining as \"respect\"? Give us a hypothetical scenario in which a person is shown civility as a nice young person might to an older person, and another scenario in which they're given \"respect\"","human_ref_B":"One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that skills tend to be less transferable then we assume.  A person who spends thousands of hours practicing and improving their ability to play chess doesn't actually improve their ability to remember strings of numbers.  They might be able to recite back the last 15 moves of the game they're playing, or have the entire board pictured in their head as they play blind folded, yet give them non-related memory tasks and they are no better then average.  Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that when it comes to many skills, people tend to just stop improving after a while unless they put in deliberate effort.  The easiest example of this is typing speed.  People get better as they type more for a while, and then tend to stall at a relatively low speed unless they deliberately pursue something like typing lessons.  When you say that age should automatically equal respect, you bake in the assumption that the older you are, the more experienced you are.  What you neglect to account for though is that experience may only matter in a relatively narrow set of situations.  Let's say I own a bar.  If I ask my grandparents how I should market that bar, I'm sure they'll have opinions to give me.  If I ask a guy who has spent the last 2 years studying bar-marketing, he'll also have opinions to give me.  My grandparents have a lot more general life experience, but the marketer specializing in this field is clearly the better person to defer to.  Let's say instead of a bar, I have a tech company.  We're a software-as-a-service outfit specializing in text-message based marketing.  If I ask a group of 60 year old advertising agency executives how to market this, and then I ask a group of 20-somethings who've been doing online marketing for 3 years how to market this, I'm likely to get very different answers.  The older advertising agency executives might have 30 years each in advertising behind them.  They've done radio, TV, direct mail, etc.  The younger web solutions group may only have 3 years each, specializing in cost-per-click, web copywriting, web design and usability.  I think both groups would have important insights, but I would never ignore the younger web-focused group just because the ad agency has been around 10 times longer.  The younger group has more experience with situations very close to my problem, whereas the older group has general, broad-based experience but may or may not understand the nuances of this specific medium.  So how does this tie back into what your saying?  When it comes to ethical and personal choices, very few people deliberately practice to improve, and so I would expect people's talent there to peak at a relatively young age.  I wouldn't expect a 50 year old to automatically be a better authority on moral issues then a 25 year old.  When it comes to business or work decisions, although people gain a lot of experience in a certain set of situations, I'm not convinced the skills gained 'transfer' as much as we intuitively believe.  Given all that, there is some merit to the idea that you should only automatically defer to older people in some area if they have a legitiment claim to closely-related expertise.  Now young people who have no closely-related expertise are in a similar no-automatic respect situation, and if your going to be working together, there is a strong argument to be made that if they don't know very much, they should defer up the hierarchy.  But that's not an age based deference, that's a position based deference.  That's not so much due to some owed respect, rather that is the case for efficiency reasons.  If everyone argues with their supervisors whenever they kind of vaguely suspect they know better, then they will waste a lot of time and energy doing non-productive things.  Even if the more junior person is right, if the issue is such a marginal one as to make no real difference, then it's not an issue worth bringing up.  edit: To quickly add to this, the times I've most often witnessed blatant disregard for the respect deserved to a position was in university classes when mature students were present and monopolizing a professors time during class, and work situations where a younger person is supervising an older person.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":519.0,"score_ratio":8.0}
+{"post_id":"hd8ufm","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The Internet SHOULD be a place for nuanced discussion and the proliferation of new ideas. The fact that it is not is a failure of the user and not the platform. I tend to get into heated discussions on the Internet, reddit in particular. But people are quicker to respond with an insult, degradation, or only half-construct an argument that conveniently leaves out an important piece of information to the topic that would hinder their own argument. Vitriol and anger seem to be people\u2019s first reaction nowadays, and I\u2019m having trouble not leaving social media altogether akin to the way that I left Twitter and Facebook in response to vitriol and an abhorrence towards criticism.  Whether correct or incorrect or right or wrong, the first reaction many people have is to decry someone\u2019s point. Outside of hate speech, racism, or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a user should be able to take their hits but keep talking to whoever it is they are discussing a topic with. More and more I just shrug my shoulders and stop responding, as things get more heated and people only get more entrenched in their views. I just went through an Internet exchange where my mind was almost changed, but the person kept following up with \u2018your argument is flawed\u2019 or \u2018you keep flip flopping\u2019 every time I conceded a point or said I appreciate their point but here is why you are wrong.  I\u2019m sure I\u2019ll get plenty of people who will say \u2018if you want nuance and civility why did you come to the Internet\/reddit\/social media\u2019 to which I respond how else am I able to attempt to forge a connection with people who I am unlikely to ever meet in person? I am subject to where I live, and even my race and gender in some circles.  I believe that Internet toxicity stems from being behind the screen and not in someone\u2019s face. We all know someone who says hateful or hurtful or conspiracy theory-fueled online that will either backtrack or avoid talking about it when it is brought up to them in person. I used to believe reddit was that place where people could debate in public in the comments without fear of vitriol or hate but I have less and less of that kind of discussion on this platform.  The kind of cogent, nuanced discussion truly needed to change someone\u2019s views on a topic is soon to be impossible. If in the case of something that is not objectively morally wrong, I believe that the majority of users would respond with insults and not their stance on a topic.  If I went to r\/gunpolitics and said the \u2018second amendment in the USA is flawed because guns are far more dangerous now than the founders ever could have imagined,\u2019 would I get arguments about how the importance of arming oneself is still important regardless of weapons technology, and arguments and evidence to back that up, or would I get everything decrying me as a communist who want to take their guns and their civil liberties? I\u2019d argue the latter.  Maybe there is a place for discussion and using the Internet as a communication tool and not a weapon, but it\u2019s hard to not get apathetic about this issue. You can\u2019t keep having the same conversations with your friends. It used to be that, people had to think about what they said but now it\u2019s all people being triggered, and those people being called shills, or someone afraid of offending so many different people that their argument is stymied or just castrated since the thing is just bland.  Change my view. Please.","c_root_id_A":"fvjo8oa","c_root_id_B":"fvjpgv7","created_at_utc_A":1592754263,"created_at_utc_B":1592754964,"score_A":2,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"Nothing in your post seems to back up why you think that this is a \"failure of the user and not the platform\". Do you actually think that the design of the platforms that you're using on the internet are *not at all* responsible for the behavior that you're describing?","human_ref_B":"> The fact that it is not is a failure of the user and not the platform.  Firstly. I would like to change your view on this point. It is the fault of the user and the platform. How a platform is designed is going to affect what users can get away with and - by extension - what users engage. This is why discourse and content quality varies dramatically from platform to platform and subreddit to subreddit.   For example, there is a huge range of quality that you get from jumping from \/r\/politics to \/r\/PoliticalDiscussion to \/r\/NeutralPolitics. Why? If all of these subreddits are divisions of the same site? Merely because they have varying rules on what can be posted and how you can engage in comments. Which leads to them being having differing qualities (and quantity) of discourse.   The same goes for this sub. Someone could respond with calling you a bunch of names or telling you to suck it up, but a mod would come and remove that response because it breaks the rules.   People will be people, but only so far as you let them. I rarely engage at Neutral Politics because it requires sources for all of your major claims and I rarely have them available at hand. So I don't engage often, but when I do, I'm forced to meet a certain standard that I might not have met otherwise.   The platform's design matters.   Since you explicitly mention Twitter: I think Twitter's design is especially bad for discussion.  * Limits on characters discourages nuanced points and citing your sources often.   * The fact that you might have to spread your point across several posts makes it difficult to follow any singular thread and have a cohesive and clear discussion.  * The lack of moderation means toxic or hostile comments are almost never going to be removed.  * The fact that there is little to no community voting that increases visibility (like upvotes or likes) means you see everything with no \"value sorting\". If a comment in this thread is bad, it will be downvoted (or not upvoted) and I'd be less likely to see it when compared to a good one. On Twitter, they're all on equal footing in many cases.   All of this leads to Twitter being especially toxic in almost every way.  > I\u2019m sure I\u2019ll get plenty of people who will say \u2018if you want nuance and civility why did you come to the Internet\/reddit\/social media\u2019 to which I respond how else am I able to attempt to forge a connection with people who I am unlikely to ever meet in person? I am subject to where I live, and even my race and gender in some circles.  I agree with this point, so I won't be changing your view on how this isn't realistic, but mostly that idea is more idealistic than anything else. Yes, you can have civil discussions with people you know, but people you know will more than likely not be educated enough to have such a discussion and will - often rightfully so - shy away from the discussion entirely. I will fight you on your views to the death if I disagree, but I think friends or family are much more likely to agree-to-disagree because of their investments in your relationships.   So yes, things stay civil but they often don't push the boundaries at all, which is why so many people talk about their racist uncle\/grandparent or sexist father or whoever else. Real life is not better for debate or discourse. It's better if your goal is to avoid all forms of hostility, but not if you want to find someone that will push you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":701.0,"score_ratio":16.5}
+{"post_id":"hd8ufm","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The Internet SHOULD be a place for nuanced discussion and the proliferation of new ideas. The fact that it is not is a failure of the user and not the platform. I tend to get into heated discussions on the Internet, reddit in particular. But people are quicker to respond with an insult, degradation, or only half-construct an argument that conveniently leaves out an important piece of information to the topic that would hinder their own argument. Vitriol and anger seem to be people\u2019s first reaction nowadays, and I\u2019m having trouble not leaving social media altogether akin to the way that I left Twitter and Facebook in response to vitriol and an abhorrence towards criticism.  Whether correct or incorrect or right or wrong, the first reaction many people have is to decry someone\u2019s point. Outside of hate speech, racism, or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a user should be able to take their hits but keep talking to whoever it is they are discussing a topic with. More and more I just shrug my shoulders and stop responding, as things get more heated and people only get more entrenched in their views. I just went through an Internet exchange where my mind was almost changed, but the person kept following up with \u2018your argument is flawed\u2019 or \u2018you keep flip flopping\u2019 every time I conceded a point or said I appreciate their point but here is why you are wrong.  I\u2019m sure I\u2019ll get plenty of people who will say \u2018if you want nuance and civility why did you come to the Internet\/reddit\/social media\u2019 to which I respond how else am I able to attempt to forge a connection with people who I am unlikely to ever meet in person? I am subject to where I live, and even my race and gender in some circles.  I believe that Internet toxicity stems from being behind the screen and not in someone\u2019s face. We all know someone who says hateful or hurtful or conspiracy theory-fueled online that will either backtrack or avoid talking about it when it is brought up to them in person. I used to believe reddit was that place where people could debate in public in the comments without fear of vitriol or hate but I have less and less of that kind of discussion on this platform.  The kind of cogent, nuanced discussion truly needed to change someone\u2019s views on a topic is soon to be impossible. If in the case of something that is not objectively morally wrong, I believe that the majority of users would respond with insults and not their stance on a topic.  If I went to r\/gunpolitics and said the \u2018second amendment in the USA is flawed because guns are far more dangerous now than the founders ever could have imagined,\u2019 would I get arguments about how the importance of arming oneself is still important regardless of weapons technology, and arguments and evidence to back that up, or would I get everything decrying me as a communist who want to take their guns and their civil liberties? I\u2019d argue the latter.  Maybe there is a place for discussion and using the Internet as a communication tool and not a weapon, but it\u2019s hard to not get apathetic about this issue. You can\u2019t keep having the same conversations with your friends. It used to be that, people had to think about what they said but now it\u2019s all people being triggered, and those people being called shills, or someone afraid of offending so many different people that their argument is stymied or just castrated since the thing is just bland.  Change my view. Please.","c_root_id_A":"fvjo8oa","c_root_id_B":"fvjr8of","created_at_utc_A":1592754263,"created_at_utc_B":1592755950,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Nothing in your post seems to back up why you think that this is a \"failure of the user and not the platform\". Do you actually think that the design of the platforms that you're using on the internet are *not at all* responsible for the behavior that you're describing?","human_ref_B":"The internet is a place for nuanced discussion, just not the entirety of the internet. Given it's sheer size, I'm not sure why that's a surprise.   If you want nuanced conversation, you can get it, it's just social media is often not the best place.   The internet is far more than just social media.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1687.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"hd8ufm","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The Internet SHOULD be a place for nuanced discussion and the proliferation of new ideas. The fact that it is not is a failure of the user and not the platform. I tend to get into heated discussions on the Internet, reddit in particular. But people are quicker to respond with an insult, degradation, or only half-construct an argument that conveniently leaves out an important piece of information to the topic that would hinder their own argument. Vitriol and anger seem to be people\u2019s first reaction nowadays, and I\u2019m having trouble not leaving social media altogether akin to the way that I left Twitter and Facebook in response to vitriol and an abhorrence towards criticism.  Whether correct or incorrect or right or wrong, the first reaction many people have is to decry someone\u2019s point. Outside of hate speech, racism, or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a user should be able to take their hits but keep talking to whoever it is they are discussing a topic with. More and more I just shrug my shoulders and stop responding, as things get more heated and people only get more entrenched in their views. I just went through an Internet exchange where my mind was almost changed, but the person kept following up with \u2018your argument is flawed\u2019 or \u2018you keep flip flopping\u2019 every time I conceded a point or said I appreciate their point but here is why you are wrong.  I\u2019m sure I\u2019ll get plenty of people who will say \u2018if you want nuance and civility why did you come to the Internet\/reddit\/social media\u2019 to which I respond how else am I able to attempt to forge a connection with people who I am unlikely to ever meet in person? I am subject to where I live, and even my race and gender in some circles.  I believe that Internet toxicity stems from being behind the screen and not in someone\u2019s face. We all know someone who says hateful or hurtful or conspiracy theory-fueled online that will either backtrack or avoid talking about it when it is brought up to them in person. I used to believe reddit was that place where people could debate in public in the comments without fear of vitriol or hate but I have less and less of that kind of discussion on this platform.  The kind of cogent, nuanced discussion truly needed to change someone\u2019s views on a topic is soon to be impossible. If in the case of something that is not objectively morally wrong, I believe that the majority of users would respond with insults and not their stance on a topic.  If I went to r\/gunpolitics and said the \u2018second amendment in the USA is flawed because guns are far more dangerous now than the founders ever could have imagined,\u2019 would I get arguments about how the importance of arming oneself is still important regardless of weapons technology, and arguments and evidence to back that up, or would I get everything decrying me as a communist who want to take their guns and their civil liberties? I\u2019d argue the latter.  Maybe there is a place for discussion and using the Internet as a communication tool and not a weapon, but it\u2019s hard to not get apathetic about this issue. You can\u2019t keep having the same conversations with your friends. It used to be that, people had to think about what they said but now it\u2019s all people being triggered, and those people being called shills, or someone afraid of offending so many different people that their argument is stymied or just castrated since the thing is just bland.  Change my view. Please.","c_root_id_A":"fvjpx1o","c_root_id_B":"fvjr8of","created_at_utc_A":1592755212,"created_at_utc_B":1592755950,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> The Internet SHOULD be a place for nuanced discussion and the proliferation of new ideas. The fact that it is not is a failure of the user and not the platform.  But it is. Nuanced discussion and the proliferation of new ideas do happen. There are sites and platforms and even subreddits with nuanced discussion. It's just that the internet is not *exclusively* used for that purpose.   Restricting an entire technology (and not just specific platforms) to be used for a single purpose would be bad. There's room for other types of communication too.","human_ref_B":"The internet is a place for nuanced discussion, just not the entirety of the internet. Given it's sheer size, I'm not sure why that's a surprise.   If you want nuanced conversation, you can get it, it's just social media is often not the best place.   The internet is far more than just social media.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":738.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"hd8ufm","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: The Internet SHOULD be a place for nuanced discussion and the proliferation of new ideas. The fact that it is not is a failure of the user and not the platform. I tend to get into heated discussions on the Internet, reddit in particular. But people are quicker to respond with an insult, degradation, or only half-construct an argument that conveniently leaves out an important piece of information to the topic that would hinder their own argument. Vitriol and anger seem to be people\u2019s first reaction nowadays, and I\u2019m having trouble not leaving social media altogether akin to the way that I left Twitter and Facebook in response to vitriol and an abhorrence towards criticism.  Whether correct or incorrect or right or wrong, the first reaction many people have is to decry someone\u2019s point. Outside of hate speech, racism, or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a user should be able to take their hits but keep talking to whoever it is they are discussing a topic with. More and more I just shrug my shoulders and stop responding, as things get more heated and people only get more entrenched in their views. I just went through an Internet exchange where my mind was almost changed, but the person kept following up with \u2018your argument is flawed\u2019 or \u2018you keep flip flopping\u2019 every time I conceded a point or said I appreciate their point but here is why you are wrong.  I\u2019m sure I\u2019ll get plenty of people who will say \u2018if you want nuance and civility why did you come to the Internet\/reddit\/social media\u2019 to which I respond how else am I able to attempt to forge a connection with people who I am unlikely to ever meet in person? I am subject to where I live, and even my race and gender in some circles.  I believe that Internet toxicity stems from being behind the screen and not in someone\u2019s face. We all know someone who says hateful or hurtful or conspiracy theory-fueled online that will either backtrack or avoid talking about it when it is brought up to them in person. I used to believe reddit was that place where people could debate in public in the comments without fear of vitriol or hate but I have less and less of that kind of discussion on this platform.  The kind of cogent, nuanced discussion truly needed to change someone\u2019s views on a topic is soon to be impossible. If in the case of something that is not objectively morally wrong, I believe that the majority of users would respond with insults and not their stance on a topic.  If I went to r\/gunpolitics and said the \u2018second amendment in the USA is flawed because guns are far more dangerous now than the founders ever could have imagined,\u2019 would I get arguments about how the importance of arming oneself is still important regardless of weapons technology, and arguments and evidence to back that up, or would I get everything decrying me as a communist who want to take their guns and their civil liberties? I\u2019d argue the latter.  Maybe there is a place for discussion and using the Internet as a communication tool and not a weapon, but it\u2019s hard to not get apathetic about this issue. You can\u2019t keep having the same conversations with your friends. It used to be that, people had to think about what they said but now it\u2019s all people being triggered, and those people being called shills, or someone afraid of offending so many different people that their argument is stymied or just castrated since the thing is just bland.  Change my view. Please.","c_root_id_A":"fvjqd0f","c_root_id_B":"fvjr8of","created_at_utc_A":1592755459,"created_at_utc_B":1592755950,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You will always get 'bad' users no matter the quality of the platform, so let's focus on the failure of the platform in whether it encourages or discourages discussion.   Reddit has a karma system which in theory encourages comments that add to the debate being upvoted , but in practice encourage people to make popular comments to receive karma and leads to less nuanced discussion. You could blame the users but I would blame the platform. The reality is I dont have the inclination to comment on every comment i see, so a simple upvote is a quick 'i agree' . On scale, that means the more simplistic comments that more lazy people see will receive the most upvotes and be placed at the top of the page, the more contentious comments get buried. Throw in the fact different subs have different rules for what should be upvoted (see AITA) , the platform has a system which encourages bland popular statements and a lower quality of debate.   Not just on comments but on posts, the default setting is to sort by popular - again it is not the nuanced arguments that will rise here but the broad ones that appeal to a large percentage of people.   So the platform encourages broad argument posts and then encourages broad argument comments. Before an individual user has an input they are being presented with popular ideas not new ones.","human_ref_B":"The internet is a place for nuanced discussion, just not the entirety of the internet. Given it's sheer size, I'm not sure why that's a surprise.   If you want nuanced conversation, you can get it, it's just social media is often not the best place.   The internet is far more than just social media.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":491.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"cecwp9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Any job paying under a certain wage, or simply the federal minimum wage, should be barred from conducting criminal background and credit checks. Poverty and crime are two closely linked concepts. While not everyone who is poor is involved in criminal activity, and likewise the other direction, many who are poor do in fact have records. Drug addiction and mental health issues, in addition to desperate poverty, contribute to criminal records.  The solution to poverty is money, and one way to get money is by working a decent job. However, criminal records keep many of those in extreme poverty from decent employment.  Recently, some jobs have started doing credit checks--presumably because things like eviction and financial trouble can cause an employee to miss days of work. In general, I think this should be illegal, but it should be especially illegal in jobs paying under a certain amount.  Employment standards that come from a place of privilege for jobs that serve workers who are far from privileged must come to an end if we hope to see any real change around poverty in the United States.","c_root_id_A":"eu1ogfb","c_root_id_B":"eu1np3s","created_at_utc_A":1563371588,"created_at_utc_B":1563371029,"score_A":17,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There are a lot of low paying jobs that involve being around children. Day care worker is the first thing that jumps to mind. I don\u2019t know where you think the income limit should be, but unless it\u2019s actually min wage then these people likely qualify. There are a lot of other similar positions at schools and churches and camps. Currently we actually mandate background checks for many of these jobs.   Additionally there are people who are left in customers houses unattended. Low house keepers and plumbers. While I am not saying someone cannot do the work with a background, but if they were recently charged with robbery I would probably look for another candidate.   I think the best way to get people with criminal histories hired, is to create more jobs. In 2008 when unemployment was high employers got picky because they could be. Now they unemployment is low, a lot of those requirements are getting loser.","human_ref_B":"Isn't this just punishing business owners trying to find decent employees?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":559.0,"score_ratio":2.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"cecwp9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Any job paying under a certain wage, or simply the federal minimum wage, should be barred from conducting criminal background and credit checks. Poverty and crime are two closely linked concepts. While not everyone who is poor is involved in criminal activity, and likewise the other direction, many who are poor do in fact have records. Drug addiction and mental health issues, in addition to desperate poverty, contribute to criminal records.  The solution to poverty is money, and one way to get money is by working a decent job. However, criminal records keep many of those in extreme poverty from decent employment.  Recently, some jobs have started doing credit checks--presumably because things like eviction and financial trouble can cause an employee to miss days of work. In general, I think this should be illegal, but it should be especially illegal in jobs paying under a certain amount.  Employment standards that come from a place of privilege for jobs that serve workers who are far from privileged must come to an end if we hope to see any real change around poverty in the United States.","c_root_id_A":"eu1np3s","c_root_id_B":"eu1onwf","created_at_utc_A":1563371029,"created_at_utc_B":1563371737,"score_A":6,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Isn't this just punishing business owners trying to find decent employees?","human_ref_B":"If you ban use of public records, you're likely to see employers resort to crude stereotyping instead, which often manifests itself in pretty blatant racism.  Studies have found employers were less likely to hire black and Hispanic males between ages 25 and 34 in \"ban the box\" jurisdictions.  >In another study, researchers submitted 15,000 fake applications to employers in New York City and New Jersey. The applicants had \"a distinctly black or distinctly white name.\" Previous studies led researchers to expect some level of differentiation based on racial assumptions about specific names. For example, in one study job applicants with black-sounding names had to send out 15 applications before getting a callback. Whites only had to send out 10.  >But here the results far exceeded that discrepancy. It showed that, before BTB, white applicants were 7 percent more likely than black applicants to be called back for an interview; after BTB they were 43 percent more likely to be asked back.  >The authors do not deny that the presence of a criminal record reduces job opportunities for all applicants. Applicants with no record were 63 percent more likely to be called back. But their findings show that a discrepancy can emerge when BTB is enacted. They explain this gap by hypothesizing that \"employers are relying on exaggerated impressions of real-world racial differences in felony conviction rates.\" They conclude that, in all likelihood, \"BTB policies encourage racial discrimination.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":708.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"cecwp9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Any job paying under a certain wage, or simply the federal minimum wage, should be barred from conducting criminal background and credit checks. Poverty and crime are two closely linked concepts. While not everyone who is poor is involved in criminal activity, and likewise the other direction, many who are poor do in fact have records. Drug addiction and mental health issues, in addition to desperate poverty, contribute to criminal records.  The solution to poverty is money, and one way to get money is by working a decent job. However, criminal records keep many of those in extreme poverty from decent employment.  Recently, some jobs have started doing credit checks--presumably because things like eviction and financial trouble can cause an employee to miss days of work. In general, I think this should be illegal, but it should be especially illegal in jobs paying under a certain amount.  Employment standards that come from a place of privilege for jobs that serve workers who are far from privileged must come to an end if we hope to see any real change around poverty in the United States.","c_root_id_A":"eu1w4sp","c_root_id_B":"eu24b78","created_at_utc_A":1563376827,"created_at_utc_B":1563382023,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I've held jobs and had investigations. Most often they looked at something on the report, asked about it, and as long as there's a reasonable explanation they moved on.    I don't believe that every job needs the above, but I do believe that jobs that involve physical security and handling of money should probably go through a bit more scrutiny. It could be curated to be more focused to needs of the job, but I don't think we can blanket get rid of all checks for those sorts of jobs.","human_ref_B":"Janitor at a children's day care.  Cashier at a Victoria's Secret  Delivery truck driver for a pharmaceutical company  Some jobs are very low skill but put the worker in contact with HUGELY vulnerable populations or with some pretty big temptations to do evil.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5196.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"cecwp9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Any job paying under a certain wage, or simply the federal minimum wage, should be barred from conducting criminal background and credit checks. Poverty and crime are two closely linked concepts. While not everyone who is poor is involved in criminal activity, and likewise the other direction, many who are poor do in fact have records. Drug addiction and mental health issues, in addition to desperate poverty, contribute to criminal records.  The solution to poverty is money, and one way to get money is by working a decent job. However, criminal records keep many of those in extreme poverty from decent employment.  Recently, some jobs have started doing credit checks--presumably because things like eviction and financial trouble can cause an employee to miss days of work. In general, I think this should be illegal, but it should be especially illegal in jobs paying under a certain amount.  Employment standards that come from a place of privilege for jobs that serve workers who are far from privileged must come to an end if we hope to see any real change around poverty in the United States.","c_root_id_A":"eu1zal2","c_root_id_B":"eu24b78","created_at_utc_A":1563378865,"created_at_utc_B":1563382023,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"That would eliminate whole categories of occupations, particularly those that do not pay well but need someone with a certain level of trust. These would be replaced with automation, making it that much harder to get out of poverty.","human_ref_B":"Janitor at a children's day care.  Cashier at a Victoria's Secret  Delivery truck driver for a pharmaceutical company  Some jobs are very low skill but put the worker in contact with HUGELY vulnerable populations or with some pretty big temptations to do evil.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3158.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7iukd","c_root_id_B":"du7l6nr","created_at_utc_A":1518567348,"created_at_utc_B":1518569957,"score_A":35,"score_B":59,"human_ref_A":"There's a lot of misconceptions here. Hopefully you're the kind of person who believes the things he does for the reasons he states and upon learning that they aren't true will change his view. Otherwise, why say them right?  > Immigrating to the US illegally is obviously a crime.   No it isn't. The correct term is \"undocumented\" not illegal for a reason. That's not propaganda. \"Illegal\" is. It's literally not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense. Most undocumented immigrants overstayed visas. That's a civil offense like having an expired license. That wouldn't make you a \"criminal\". Even illegally crossing is only a misdemeanor. It's intentionally misleading to call them \"illegals\". For the vast majority of the history of immigration into the US, there was never any kind of documentation. Documented vs undocumented is a relatively new issue.   > If it was a bank robber caught 10 years later no one would be upset about his punishment coming.  I doubt you care, but actually the statute of limitations on larceny, robbery, and felony larceny are all under 10 years. There is a reason for a statute of limitations and it's insane that a civil crime or misdemeanor would outrank felonies. It's just the dumbest use of resources.   > Maybe I'm not seeing the other side.   This is correct. The problem people have with ICE raiding police holding cells has nothing to do with two (incorrect) assumptions you've argued. Here's the perverse thing about it:  ICE is asking local police to enforce federal laws with local (state) resources and money. It's a states rights issue to force local officers to sacrifice their neighborhood priorities and human asset relationships for federal priorities that the local taxpayers don't want. It's theft of resources. The victim is the state and local police department. It's kinda like quartering federal soldiers. Pay for your own damn houses.","human_ref_B":"> I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.  I'm going to focus on this specific example, as the other commenters are taking a more broad approach.  Regardless of if you think we should do a more active job deporting immigrants, this is a particularly bad way to do it.  By setting precident that you can not get any help without likely being deported,  you are forcing these illegal immigrants to turn to alternative ways to resolve conflict.  Maybe they'll take the law into their own hand. Maybe they still need help, so they reach out to a local gang.  This goes further in that sometimes, law enforcement needs *their* help. If the only witness of a crime refuses to come forward because they know they'll get deported,  you're just impeding our justice system and hurting everyone *but* the immigrant.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2609.0,"score_ratio":1.6857142857}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7l6nr","c_root_id_B":"du7hqom","created_at_utc_A":1518569957,"created_at_utc_B":1518566119,"score_A":59,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"> I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.  I'm going to focus on this specific example, as the other commenters are taking a more broad approach.  Regardless of if you think we should do a more active job deporting immigrants, this is a particularly bad way to do it.  By setting precident that you can not get any help without likely being deported,  you are forcing these illegal immigrants to turn to alternative ways to resolve conflict.  Maybe they'll take the law into their own hand. Maybe they still need help, so they reach out to a local gang.  This goes further in that sometimes, law enforcement needs *their* help. If the only witness of a crime refuses to come forward because they know they'll get deported,  you're just impeding our justice system and hurting everyone *but* the immigrant.","human_ref_B":"There's a problem with your argument and you were kind enough to already exemplify it, here it is:  > People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment  This is a false equivalence. The bank robber stole the money and 10 years after it he steal stole the money, whatever negative effect he caused, it's still there. An immigrant who lived 10 years, however, caused a net positive effect on country*. In the 10 years he lived he moved the economy, he created at least a job, he strengthened a community etc. He lived. Maybe with a family. He did what normal people do, which is good for the country  Also, on a different note, I'm sure you heard of the statute of limitations. So, yes, how long ago a crime was committed does matter in the right context. Specifically, \"Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.\" is something that you might want to consider   \\* Sorry for the google link, but it's such a broad topic that I don't want to link a single article. You can find many  PS: I'm not way saying the statute of limitations is a reasonable legal defense for this particular problem. I'm just illustrating a thought","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3838.0,"score_ratio":1.84375}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7l6nr","c_root_id_B":"du7hhkj","created_at_utc_A":1518569957,"created_at_utc_B":1518565843,"score_A":59,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"> I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.  I'm going to focus on this specific example, as the other commenters are taking a more broad approach.  Regardless of if you think we should do a more active job deporting immigrants, this is a particularly bad way to do it.  By setting precident that you can not get any help without likely being deported,  you are forcing these illegal immigrants to turn to alternative ways to resolve conflict.  Maybe they'll take the law into their own hand. Maybe they still need help, so they reach out to a local gang.  This goes further in that sometimes, law enforcement needs *their* help. If the only witness of a crime refuses to come forward because they know they'll get deported,  you're just impeding our justice system and hurting everyone *but* the immigrant.","human_ref_B":"Many feel that the USA's immigration policies are too harsh, and many of these individuals who are being convicted of crimes shouldn't be convicted. They should have clear legal routes to becoming citizens because they contribute greatly to the USA and make it a better place.  This is different from bank robbers, because they murder and kill and steal from people.   Just because something is legal doesn't mean people won't get annoyed at it.  There are lots of USA laws like this.  http:\/\/community.seattletimes.nwsource.com\/archive\/?date=19901216&slug=1109727  Lots of people, like this soldier who was held as a hostage and so unable to pay, are arrested for failing to pay child support . You might say \"However, it is not the United State's fault that they were held hostage illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not. \"  https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/post-nation\/wp\/2017\/04\/26\/black-man-arrested-for-jaywalking-was-beaten-in-jail-stripped-naked-and-mocked-lawsuit-says\/?utm_term=.84b88e95bd60  This man was arrested for walking across the street.  https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en_au\/article\/8gdx84\/the-police-can-take-your-cash-without-charging-you-with-a-crime  This man was stopped by police, and had his cash seized for having cash. Many feel this is immoral.  Just because something is legal, doesn't mean people can't be annoyed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4114.0,"score_ratio":3.4705882353}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7k4hz","c_root_id_B":"du7l6nr","created_at_utc_A":1518568771,"created_at_utc_B":1518569957,"score_A":8,"score_B":59,"human_ref_A":"You use the example of a robber, but I would compare it to something like a college house party. You may be committing a civil infraction (the case with unlawful presence) or misdemeanor (the case with unlawful entry) in your jurisdiction by throwing a house party, especially if there is loud music or underage drinking or too many people. But, there's still a great degree of discretion in *enforcing* the penalties for that. The cops may come to break up the party, but issue a warning instead of pressing charges or issuing a fine.   When it comes to a question of fairness, my standard for penalizing an illegal house party is the extent to which it disturbed the neighbors or harmed the attendees, rather than adherence to the letter of the law. If the neighbors called the cops because they couldn't sleep and and the host got fined, that's seems perfectly fair to me. If the party is at a house on a county road and the music's just a bit too loud, and the sheriff breaks it up and the host gets a six month jail sentence for disturbing the peace, that may be the legal penalty but it's probably impossible to think of that as justice.   If someone is in the country without a legal authorization to be, there are certainly reasons one would want to remove them. But being in the country without authorization *by itself* doesn't have any different effect on other than that of someone who is authorized. Deportation is a pretty cost effective form of punishment compared to say, life in prison, and thus it makes sense for someone who would face that measure. But someone who is abiding by the laws that concern actually harming people, as in not committing crimes or even any civil infractions, outside that of unlawful entry or presence, probably doesn't justly deserve to be forcibly removed to another country.","human_ref_B":"> I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.  I'm going to focus on this specific example, as the other commenters are taking a more broad approach.  Regardless of if you think we should do a more active job deporting immigrants, this is a particularly bad way to do it.  By setting precident that you can not get any help without likely being deported,  you are forcing these illegal immigrants to turn to alternative ways to resolve conflict.  Maybe they'll take the law into their own hand. Maybe they still need help, so they reach out to a local gang.  This goes further in that sometimes, law enforcement needs *their* help. If the only witness of a crime refuses to come forward because they know they'll get deported,  you're just impeding our justice system and hurting everyone *but* the immigrant.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1186.0,"score_ratio":7.375}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7l6nr","c_root_id_B":"du7hhjv","created_at_utc_A":1518569957,"created_at_utc_B":1518565842,"score_A":59,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.  I'm going to focus on this specific example, as the other commenters are taking a more broad approach.  Regardless of if you think we should do a more active job deporting immigrants, this is a particularly bad way to do it.  By setting precident that you can not get any help without likely being deported,  you are forcing these illegal immigrants to turn to alternative ways to resolve conflict.  Maybe they'll take the law into their own hand. Maybe they still need help, so they reach out to a local gang.  This goes further in that sometimes, law enforcement needs *their* help. If the only witness of a crime refuses to come forward because they know they'll get deported,  you're just impeding our justice system and hurting everyone *but* the immigrant.","human_ref_B":"What I don't see is people's issue with NOT deporting people.   1) They commit less crime  2) They only make up for ~5% of the labor force  3) They mainly live in states that are doing well economically  4) It costs us hundreds of millions to deport them  5) There is no real moral argument you can make that supports the idea that illegal immigrants have less of a right to be here. Just because someone plops out their mom on US soil they get to stay, but someone that goes through the common misfortunes of an illegal immigrant doesn't?   So why is there often more concern over the illegal immigrant situation than over much more important issues like military spending, deteriorating public schools, homelessness, etc?   It looks more like illegal immigrants are just a distraction those in power have given us to punch down.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4115.0,"score_ratio":8.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7hqom","c_root_id_B":"du7iukd","created_at_utc_A":1518566119,"created_at_utc_B":1518567348,"score_A":32,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"There's a problem with your argument and you were kind enough to already exemplify it, here it is:  > People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment  This is a false equivalence. The bank robber stole the money and 10 years after it he steal stole the money, whatever negative effect he caused, it's still there. An immigrant who lived 10 years, however, caused a net positive effect on country*. In the 10 years he lived he moved the economy, he created at least a job, he strengthened a community etc. He lived. Maybe with a family. He did what normal people do, which is good for the country  Also, on a different note, I'm sure you heard of the statute of limitations. So, yes, how long ago a crime was committed does matter in the right context. Specifically, \"Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.\" is something that you might want to consider   \\* Sorry for the google link, but it's such a broad topic that I don't want to link a single article. You can find many  PS: I'm not way saying the statute of limitations is a reasonable legal defense for this particular problem. I'm just illustrating a thought","human_ref_B":"There's a lot of misconceptions here. Hopefully you're the kind of person who believes the things he does for the reasons he states and upon learning that they aren't true will change his view. Otherwise, why say them right?  > Immigrating to the US illegally is obviously a crime.   No it isn't. The correct term is \"undocumented\" not illegal for a reason. That's not propaganda. \"Illegal\" is. It's literally not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense. Most undocumented immigrants overstayed visas. That's a civil offense like having an expired license. That wouldn't make you a \"criminal\". Even illegally crossing is only a misdemeanor. It's intentionally misleading to call them \"illegals\". For the vast majority of the history of immigration into the US, there was never any kind of documentation. Documented vs undocumented is a relatively new issue.   > If it was a bank robber caught 10 years later no one would be upset about his punishment coming.  I doubt you care, but actually the statute of limitations on larceny, robbery, and felony larceny are all under 10 years. There is a reason for a statute of limitations and it's insane that a civil crime or misdemeanor would outrank felonies. It's just the dumbest use of resources.   > Maybe I'm not seeing the other side.   This is correct. The problem people have with ICE raiding police holding cells has nothing to do with two (incorrect) assumptions you've argued. Here's the perverse thing about it:  ICE is asking local police to enforce federal laws with local (state) resources and money. It's a states rights issue to force local officers to sacrifice their neighborhood priorities and human asset relationships for federal priorities that the local taxpayers don't want. It's theft of resources. The victim is the state and local police department. It's kinda like quartering federal soldiers. Pay for your own damn houses.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1229.0,"score_ratio":1.09375}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7iukd","c_root_id_B":"du7hhkj","created_at_utc_A":1518567348,"created_at_utc_B":1518565843,"score_A":35,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"There's a lot of misconceptions here. Hopefully you're the kind of person who believes the things he does for the reasons he states and upon learning that they aren't true will change his view. Otherwise, why say them right?  > Immigrating to the US illegally is obviously a crime.   No it isn't. The correct term is \"undocumented\" not illegal for a reason. That's not propaganda. \"Illegal\" is. It's literally not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense. Most undocumented immigrants overstayed visas. That's a civil offense like having an expired license. That wouldn't make you a \"criminal\". Even illegally crossing is only a misdemeanor. It's intentionally misleading to call them \"illegals\". For the vast majority of the history of immigration into the US, there was never any kind of documentation. Documented vs undocumented is a relatively new issue.   > If it was a bank robber caught 10 years later no one would be upset about his punishment coming.  I doubt you care, but actually the statute of limitations on larceny, robbery, and felony larceny are all under 10 years. There is a reason for a statute of limitations and it's insane that a civil crime or misdemeanor would outrank felonies. It's just the dumbest use of resources.   > Maybe I'm not seeing the other side.   This is correct. The problem people have with ICE raiding police holding cells has nothing to do with two (incorrect) assumptions you've argued. Here's the perverse thing about it:  ICE is asking local police to enforce federal laws with local (state) resources and money. It's a states rights issue to force local officers to sacrifice their neighborhood priorities and human asset relationships for federal priorities that the local taxpayers don't want. It's theft of resources. The victim is the state and local police department. It's kinda like quartering federal soldiers. Pay for your own damn houses.","human_ref_B":"Many feel that the USA's immigration policies are too harsh, and many of these individuals who are being convicted of crimes shouldn't be convicted. They should have clear legal routes to becoming citizens because they contribute greatly to the USA and make it a better place.  This is different from bank robbers, because they murder and kill and steal from people.   Just because something is legal doesn't mean people won't get annoyed at it.  There are lots of USA laws like this.  http:\/\/community.seattletimes.nwsource.com\/archive\/?date=19901216&slug=1109727  Lots of people, like this soldier who was held as a hostage and so unable to pay, are arrested for failing to pay child support . You might say \"However, it is not the United State's fault that they were held hostage illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not. \"  https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/post-nation\/wp\/2017\/04\/26\/black-man-arrested-for-jaywalking-was-beaten-in-jail-stripped-naked-and-mocked-lawsuit-says\/?utm_term=.84b88e95bd60  This man was arrested for walking across the street.  https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en_au\/article\/8gdx84\/the-police-can-take-your-cash-without-charging-you-with-a-crime  This man was stopped by police, and had his cash seized for having cash. Many feel this is immoral.  Just because something is legal, doesn't mean people can't be annoyed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1505.0,"score_ratio":2.0588235294}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7iukd","c_root_id_B":"du7hhjv","created_at_utc_A":1518567348,"created_at_utc_B":1518565842,"score_A":35,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"There's a lot of misconceptions here. Hopefully you're the kind of person who believes the things he does for the reasons he states and upon learning that they aren't true will change his view. Otherwise, why say them right?  > Immigrating to the US illegally is obviously a crime.   No it isn't. The correct term is \"undocumented\" not illegal for a reason. That's not propaganda. \"Illegal\" is. It's literally not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense. Most undocumented immigrants overstayed visas. That's a civil offense like having an expired license. That wouldn't make you a \"criminal\". Even illegally crossing is only a misdemeanor. It's intentionally misleading to call them \"illegals\". For the vast majority of the history of immigration into the US, there was never any kind of documentation. Documented vs undocumented is a relatively new issue.   > If it was a bank robber caught 10 years later no one would be upset about his punishment coming.  I doubt you care, but actually the statute of limitations on larceny, robbery, and felony larceny are all under 10 years. There is a reason for a statute of limitations and it's insane that a civil crime or misdemeanor would outrank felonies. It's just the dumbest use of resources.   > Maybe I'm not seeing the other side.   This is correct. The problem people have with ICE raiding police holding cells has nothing to do with two (incorrect) assumptions you've argued. Here's the perverse thing about it:  ICE is asking local police to enforce federal laws with local (state) resources and money. It's a states rights issue to force local officers to sacrifice their neighborhood priorities and human asset relationships for federal priorities that the local taxpayers don't want. It's theft of resources. The victim is the state and local police department. It's kinda like quartering federal soldiers. Pay for your own damn houses.","human_ref_B":"What I don't see is people's issue with NOT deporting people.   1) They commit less crime  2) They only make up for ~5% of the labor force  3) They mainly live in states that are doing well economically  4) It costs us hundreds of millions to deport them  5) There is no real moral argument you can make that supports the idea that illegal immigrants have less of a right to be here. Just because someone plops out their mom on US soil they get to stay, but someone that goes through the common misfortunes of an illegal immigrant doesn't?   So why is there often more concern over the illegal immigrant situation than over much more important issues like military spending, deteriorating public schools, homelessness, etc?   It looks more like illegal immigrants are just a distraction those in power have given us to punch down.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1506.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7hhkj","c_root_id_B":"du7hqom","created_at_utc_A":1518565843,"created_at_utc_B":1518566119,"score_A":17,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"Many feel that the USA's immigration policies are too harsh, and many of these individuals who are being convicted of crimes shouldn't be convicted. They should have clear legal routes to becoming citizens because they contribute greatly to the USA and make it a better place.  This is different from bank robbers, because they murder and kill and steal from people.   Just because something is legal doesn't mean people won't get annoyed at it.  There are lots of USA laws like this.  http:\/\/community.seattletimes.nwsource.com\/archive\/?date=19901216&slug=1109727  Lots of people, like this soldier who was held as a hostage and so unable to pay, are arrested for failing to pay child support . You might say \"However, it is not the United State's fault that they were held hostage illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not. \"  https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/post-nation\/wp\/2017\/04\/26\/black-man-arrested-for-jaywalking-was-beaten-in-jail-stripped-naked-and-mocked-lawsuit-says\/?utm_term=.84b88e95bd60  This man was arrested for walking across the street.  https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en_au\/article\/8gdx84\/the-police-can-take-your-cash-without-charging-you-with-a-crime  This man was stopped by police, and had his cash seized for having cash. Many feel this is immoral.  Just because something is legal, doesn't mean people can't be annoyed.","human_ref_B":"There's a problem with your argument and you were kind enough to already exemplify it, here it is:  > People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment  This is a false equivalence. The bank robber stole the money and 10 years after it he steal stole the money, whatever negative effect he caused, it's still there. An immigrant who lived 10 years, however, caused a net positive effect on country*. In the 10 years he lived he moved the economy, he created at least a job, he strengthened a community etc. He lived. Maybe with a family. He did what normal people do, which is good for the country  Also, on a different note, I'm sure you heard of the statute of limitations. So, yes, how long ago a crime was committed does matter in the right context. Specifically, \"Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.\" is something that you might want to consider   \\* Sorry for the google link, but it's such a broad topic that I don't want to link a single article. You can find many  PS: I'm not way saying the statute of limitations is a reasonable legal defense for this particular problem. I'm just illustrating a thought","labels":0,"seconds_difference":276.0,"score_ratio":1.8823529412}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7hhjv","c_root_id_B":"du7hqom","created_at_utc_A":1518565842,"created_at_utc_B":1518566119,"score_A":7,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"What I don't see is people's issue with NOT deporting people.   1) They commit less crime  2) They only make up for ~5% of the labor force  3) They mainly live in states that are doing well economically  4) It costs us hundreds of millions to deport them  5) There is no real moral argument you can make that supports the idea that illegal immigrants have less of a right to be here. Just because someone plops out their mom on US soil they get to stay, but someone that goes through the common misfortunes of an illegal immigrant doesn't?   So why is there often more concern over the illegal immigrant situation than over much more important issues like military spending, deteriorating public schools, homelessness, etc?   It looks more like illegal immigrants are just a distraction those in power have given us to punch down.","human_ref_B":"There's a problem with your argument and you were kind enough to already exemplify it, here it is:  > People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment  This is a false equivalence. The bank robber stole the money and 10 years after it he steal stole the money, whatever negative effect he caused, it's still there. An immigrant who lived 10 years, however, caused a net positive effect on country*. In the 10 years he lived he moved the economy, he created at least a job, he strengthened a community etc. He lived. Maybe with a family. He did what normal people do, which is good for the country  Also, on a different note, I'm sure you heard of the statute of limitations. So, yes, how long ago a crime was committed does matter in the right context. Specifically, \"Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.\" is something that you might want to consider   \\* Sorry for the google link, but it's such a broad topic that I don't want to link a single article. You can find many  PS: I'm not way saying the statute of limitations is a reasonable legal defense for this particular problem. I'm just illustrating a thought","labels":0,"seconds_difference":277.0,"score_ratio":4.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7hhkj","c_root_id_B":"du7hhjv","created_at_utc_A":1518565843,"created_at_utc_B":1518565842,"score_A":17,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Many feel that the USA's immigration policies are too harsh, and many of these individuals who are being convicted of crimes shouldn't be convicted. They should have clear legal routes to becoming citizens because they contribute greatly to the USA and make it a better place.  This is different from bank robbers, because they murder and kill and steal from people.   Just because something is legal doesn't mean people won't get annoyed at it.  There are lots of USA laws like this.  http:\/\/community.seattletimes.nwsource.com\/archive\/?date=19901216&slug=1109727  Lots of people, like this soldier who was held as a hostage and so unable to pay, are arrested for failing to pay child support . You might say \"However, it is not the United State's fault that they were held hostage illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not. \"  https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/post-nation\/wp\/2017\/04\/26\/black-man-arrested-for-jaywalking-was-beaten-in-jail-stripped-naked-and-mocked-lawsuit-says\/?utm_term=.84b88e95bd60  This man was arrested for walking across the street.  https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en_au\/article\/8gdx84\/the-police-can-take-your-cash-without-charging-you-with-a-crime  This man was stopped by police, and had his cash seized for having cash. Many feel this is immoral.  Just because something is legal, doesn't mean people can't be annoyed.","human_ref_B":"What I don't see is people's issue with NOT deporting people.   1) They commit less crime  2) They only make up for ~5% of the labor force  3) They mainly live in states that are doing well economically  4) It costs us hundreds of millions to deport them  5) There is no real moral argument you can make that supports the idea that illegal immigrants have less of a right to be here. Just because someone plops out their mom on US soil they get to stay, but someone that goes through the common misfortunes of an illegal immigrant doesn't?   So why is there often more concern over the illegal immigrant situation than over much more important issues like military spending, deteriorating public schools, homelessness, etc?   It looks more like illegal immigrants are just a distraction those in power have given us to punch down.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1.0,"score_ratio":2.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"7xdpo8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE.   Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments\/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration.   People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don\u2019t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here.   Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government\u2019s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not.   Maybe I am not seeing people\u2019s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he\/she not also being uprooted from their life?","c_root_id_A":"du7k4hz","c_root_id_B":"du7hhjv","created_at_utc_A":1518568771,"created_at_utc_B":1518565842,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"You use the example of a robber, but I would compare it to something like a college house party. You may be committing a civil infraction (the case with unlawful presence) or misdemeanor (the case with unlawful entry) in your jurisdiction by throwing a house party, especially if there is loud music or underage drinking or too many people. But, there's still a great degree of discretion in *enforcing* the penalties for that. The cops may come to break up the party, but issue a warning instead of pressing charges or issuing a fine.   When it comes to a question of fairness, my standard for penalizing an illegal house party is the extent to which it disturbed the neighbors or harmed the attendees, rather than adherence to the letter of the law. If the neighbors called the cops because they couldn't sleep and and the host got fined, that's seems perfectly fair to me. If the party is at a house on a county road and the music's just a bit too loud, and the sheriff breaks it up and the host gets a six month jail sentence for disturbing the peace, that may be the legal penalty but it's probably impossible to think of that as justice.   If someone is in the country without a legal authorization to be, there are certainly reasons one would want to remove them. But being in the country without authorization *by itself* doesn't have any different effect on other than that of someone who is authorized. Deportation is a pretty cost effective form of punishment compared to say, life in prison, and thus it makes sense for someone who would face that measure. But someone who is abiding by the laws that concern actually harming people, as in not committing crimes or even any civil infractions, outside that of unlawful entry or presence, probably doesn't justly deserve to be forcibly removed to another country.","human_ref_B":"What I don't see is people's issue with NOT deporting people.   1) They commit less crime  2) They only make up for ~5% of the labor force  3) They mainly live in states that are doing well economically  4) It costs us hundreds of millions to deport them  5) There is no real moral argument you can make that supports the idea that illegal immigrants have less of a right to be here. Just because someone plops out their mom on US soil they get to stay, but someone that goes through the common misfortunes of an illegal immigrant doesn't?   So why is there often more concern over the illegal immigrant situation than over much more important issues like military spending, deteriorating public schools, homelessness, etc?   It looks more like illegal immigrants are just a distraction those in power have given us to punch down.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2929.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
+{"post_id":"tk4wti","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Trying the door to a public bathroom before knocking is ridiculous This is one of my biggest annoyances, and I want to see if there are any reasons I shouldn\u2019t be annoyed.  With a single person public restroom, about half the time people just jiggle the knob without even knocking.   I always lock the door, but in some places with the push lock if isn\u2019t as sturdy, I\u2019m worried if it didn\u2019t work properly someone is going to barge in.  There is no reason to not knock. If you knock and don\u2019t hear anything, that\u2019s when you try the door. There\u2019s no reason someone shouldn\u2019t knock first and immediately jump to just trying the door. This is how you walk in on someone.","c_root_id_A":"i1o6r2a","c_root_id_B":"i1o41we","created_at_utc_A":1647962883,"created_at_utc_B":1647961809,"score_A":76,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I hate when people knock. Then I have to say something. That\u2019s the last place I want to speak to a stranger. You might as well announce \u201cI\u2019m shitting in here!\u201d It\u2019s crude and embarrassing. The lock is its own form of communication. It says no so I don\u2019t have to.","human_ref_B":"I mean, it comes down to an assumption that whoever's in there would've locked up. They aren't jiggling doors to try and catch someone with their pants down.  There's always the chance that whoever it is has poor hearing and knows they wouldn't hear an \"Occupied!\" Or they were operating on autopilot and forgot to knock. Or they didn't realize it was a single-room restroom and thought they were entering a multi-stall one.  I find in general that when I get pissed off about stuff like this it has more to do with my mental state than the rudeness of people around me. Think of it as an exercise in extending patience and empathy to strangers. Staying zen when someone jiggles the handle will build that muscle so you can have patience when you need it, like when dealing with kids or driving in New York.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1074.0,"score_ratio":3.619047619}
+{"post_id":"tk4wti","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Trying the door to a public bathroom before knocking is ridiculous This is one of my biggest annoyances, and I want to see if there are any reasons I shouldn\u2019t be annoyed.  With a single person public restroom, about half the time people just jiggle the knob without even knocking.   I always lock the door, but in some places with the push lock if isn\u2019t as sturdy, I\u2019m worried if it didn\u2019t work properly someone is going to barge in.  There is no reason to not knock. If you knock and don\u2019t hear anything, that\u2019s when you try the door. There\u2019s no reason someone shouldn\u2019t knock first and immediately jump to just trying the door. This is how you walk in on someone.","c_root_id_A":"i1o6r2a","c_root_id_B":"i1o5gcn","created_at_utc_A":1647962883,"created_at_utc_B":1647962366,"score_A":76,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I hate when people knock. Then I have to say something. That\u2019s the last place I want to speak to a stranger. You might as well announce \u201cI\u2019m shitting in here!\u201d It\u2019s crude and embarrassing. The lock is its own form of communication. It says no so I don\u2019t have to.","human_ref_B":"Most places where you are using a single person bathroom are crowded and often noisy, and they tend to have pretty heavy doors.  Those things combined means that the person inside (where it is quieter) needs to yell louder than they think for the person outside (where it\u2019s noisy and on the other side of a heavy door) to hear them.  I am overall more confident in locks than I am in my own hearing and the ability for people to judge the necessary volume.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":517.0,"score_ratio":8.4444444444}
+{"post_id":"tk4wti","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Trying the door to a public bathroom before knocking is ridiculous This is one of my biggest annoyances, and I want to see if there are any reasons I shouldn\u2019t be annoyed.  With a single person public restroom, about half the time people just jiggle the knob without even knocking.   I always lock the door, but in some places with the push lock if isn\u2019t as sturdy, I\u2019m worried if it didn\u2019t work properly someone is going to barge in.  There is no reason to not knock. If you knock and don\u2019t hear anything, that\u2019s when you try the door. There\u2019s no reason someone shouldn\u2019t knock first and immediately jump to just trying the door. This is how you walk in on someone.","c_root_id_A":"i1o6r2a","c_root_id_B":"i1o67mr","created_at_utc_A":1647962883,"created_at_utc_B":1647962667,"score_A":76,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I hate when people knock. Then I have to say something. That\u2019s the last place I want to speak to a stranger. You might as well announce \u201cI\u2019m shitting in here!\u201d It\u2019s crude and embarrassing. The lock is its own form of communication. It says no so I don\u2019t have to.","human_ref_B":"Do you think it is possible that people do knock first, or at least many of them do, but you cannot hear them because you are a.) focused on your piss\/shit b.) the place is loud and you could not hear it or c.) the person is not knocking hard enough to make a recognizable sound?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":216.0,"score_ratio":38.0}
+{"post_id":"tk4wti","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Trying the door to a public bathroom before knocking is ridiculous This is one of my biggest annoyances, and I want to see if there are any reasons I shouldn\u2019t be annoyed.  With a single person public restroom, about half the time people just jiggle the knob without even knocking.   I always lock the door, but in some places with the push lock if isn\u2019t as sturdy, I\u2019m worried if it didn\u2019t work properly someone is going to barge in.  There is no reason to not knock. If you knock and don\u2019t hear anything, that\u2019s when you try the door. There\u2019s no reason someone shouldn\u2019t knock first and immediately jump to just trying the door. This is how you walk in on someone.","c_root_id_A":"i1okue4","c_root_id_B":"i1ocopr","created_at_utc_A":1647968329,"created_at_utc_B":1647965219,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In somebody's home, the bathroom door being shut is usually a visual signal that it's occupied; for obvious reasons, the norm in public is to leave the bathroom door closed, which removes the visual signal.  The best thing would be a little visual indicator to tell you if the bathroom is occupied (like certain public facilities or airplane bathrooms), which allows you to tell that it's occupied without any disturbance to its occupant, inconvenience to yourself, or annoyance to others.  Although I tend to knock before trying the door, I don't think it's unreasonable to try the door first (provided that you do not open it all the way). Here's why:  * Trying the door is minimally intrusive. It's a pretty reliable assumption that the occupant will have locked the door, and one can check to see it's locked without disturbing the occupant or requiring any action on their part. Just a little tug tells you someone is certainly in there. * People do not always answer when you knock -- and if the room is unoccupied, they'll certainly not answer. That means it's perfectly possible to knock, get no response, and open an unlocked door ... only to find a pants-down fellow staring at his phone. * With that in mind, it seems perfectly reasonable to a) check the lock (which doesn't require the occupant to respond) and b) finding it unlocked, give a little knock, prior to opening the door.   If you take those steps, then you've ensured that a) you'll almost always be able to correctly guess whether the bathroom is occupied, b) you'll have done it without requiring any effort from the occupant, and c) you'll still have a secondary defense against unlocked-door-poopers (and will only require an \"occupied\" response from folks in this category, whose laissez-faire attitude toward locks means they probably deserve it).","human_ref_B":"Crazy CMV!!!   What if the person using the toilet is deaf?  If someone knocks the person using the toilet needs to respond and that could give them serious anxiety. I think most people want to shit in privacy, especially when using a public toilet.   I would rather someone jiggle the handle then talk to me while taking a shit. I think you're built differently than most people who find themselves shitting in public.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3110.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"tk4wti","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Trying the door to a public bathroom before knocking is ridiculous This is one of my biggest annoyances, and I want to see if there are any reasons I shouldn\u2019t be annoyed.  With a single person public restroom, about half the time people just jiggle the knob without even knocking.   I always lock the door, but in some places with the push lock if isn\u2019t as sturdy, I\u2019m worried if it didn\u2019t work properly someone is going to barge in.  There is no reason to not knock. If you knock and don\u2019t hear anything, that\u2019s when you try the door. There\u2019s no reason someone shouldn\u2019t knock first and immediately jump to just trying the door. This is how you walk in on someone.","c_root_id_A":"i1okue4","c_root_id_B":"i1o67mr","created_at_utc_A":1647968329,"created_at_utc_B":1647962667,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In somebody's home, the bathroom door being shut is usually a visual signal that it's occupied; for obvious reasons, the norm in public is to leave the bathroom door closed, which removes the visual signal.  The best thing would be a little visual indicator to tell you if the bathroom is occupied (like certain public facilities or airplane bathrooms), which allows you to tell that it's occupied without any disturbance to its occupant, inconvenience to yourself, or annoyance to others.  Although I tend to knock before trying the door, I don't think it's unreasonable to try the door first (provided that you do not open it all the way). Here's why:  * Trying the door is minimally intrusive. It's a pretty reliable assumption that the occupant will have locked the door, and one can check to see it's locked without disturbing the occupant or requiring any action on their part. Just a little tug tells you someone is certainly in there. * People do not always answer when you knock -- and if the room is unoccupied, they'll certainly not answer. That means it's perfectly possible to knock, get no response, and open an unlocked door ... only to find a pants-down fellow staring at his phone. * With that in mind, it seems perfectly reasonable to a) check the lock (which doesn't require the occupant to respond) and b) finding it unlocked, give a little knock, prior to opening the door.   If you take those steps, then you've ensured that a) you'll almost always be able to correctly guess whether the bathroom is occupied, b) you'll have done it without requiring any effort from the occupant, and c) you'll still have a secondary defense against unlocked-door-poopers (and will only require an \"occupied\" response from folks in this category, whose laissez-faire attitude toward locks means they probably deserve it).","human_ref_B":"Do you think it is possible that people do knock first, or at least many of them do, but you cannot hear them because you are a.) focused on your piss\/shit b.) the place is loud and you could not hear it or c.) the person is not knocking hard enough to make a recognizable sound?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5662.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"tk4wti","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Trying the door to a public bathroom before knocking is ridiculous This is one of my biggest annoyances, and I want to see if there are any reasons I shouldn\u2019t be annoyed.  With a single person public restroom, about half the time people just jiggle the knob without even knocking.   I always lock the door, but in some places with the push lock if isn\u2019t as sturdy, I\u2019m worried if it didn\u2019t work properly someone is going to barge in.  There is no reason to not knock. If you knock and don\u2019t hear anything, that\u2019s when you try the door. There\u2019s no reason someone shouldn\u2019t knock first and immediately jump to just trying the door. This is how you walk in on someone.","c_root_id_A":"i1o67mr","c_root_id_B":"i1o92t4","created_at_utc_A":1647962667,"created_at_utc_B":1647963810,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Do you think it is possible that people do knock first, or at least many of them do, but you cannot hear them because you are a.) focused on your piss\/shit b.) the place is loud and you could not hear it or c.) the person is not knocking hard enough to make a recognizable sound?","human_ref_B":"I often don't know that a bathroom is single use (coming from a female perspective).  Oftentimes you open up the door and see 2-3 stalls and a sink for example, and the line would then start inside.    If there's a single use bathroom it will usually have an indicator below the knob that will state it is in use (locked).   I've had people try to come in when I'm in a single use bathroom, always followed by a quick \"sorry!\".  Its a common problem, and I'd argue its more the building owner's fault for not making it more clear.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1143.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"tk4wti","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Trying the door to a public bathroom before knocking is ridiculous This is one of my biggest annoyances, and I want to see if there are any reasons I shouldn\u2019t be annoyed.  With a single person public restroom, about half the time people just jiggle the knob without even knocking.   I always lock the door, but in some places with the push lock if isn\u2019t as sturdy, I\u2019m worried if it didn\u2019t work properly someone is going to barge in.  There is no reason to not knock. If you knock and don\u2019t hear anything, that\u2019s when you try the door. There\u2019s no reason someone shouldn\u2019t knock first and immediately jump to just trying the door. This is how you walk in on someone.","c_root_id_A":"i1o67mr","c_root_id_B":"i1ocopr","created_at_utc_A":1647962667,"created_at_utc_B":1647965219,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Do you think it is possible that people do knock first, or at least many of them do, but you cannot hear them because you are a.) focused on your piss\/shit b.) the place is loud and you could not hear it or c.) the person is not knocking hard enough to make a recognizable sound?","human_ref_B":"Crazy CMV!!!   What if the person using the toilet is deaf?  If someone knocks the person using the toilet needs to respond and that could give them serious anxiety. I think most people want to shit in privacy, especially when using a public toilet.   I would rather someone jiggle the handle then talk to me while taking a shit. I think you're built differently than most people who find themselves shitting in public.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2552.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"f1vt4z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: There would be nothing wrong with the apparent 'dark' future, where we all end up hooked up to a system that directly stimulates our brain. \"Genuine\" existence has no real meaning or value. Everyone seems to think that advancements in technology are great, but that we need to avoid this dystopian future that we're heading towards. They think it would be depressing if no-one interacted in the real world anymore and were simply hooked up to a machine that stimulated our brains, or simulated a virtual existence. Let's assume this is a perfect system that can affect our brain however it chooses, keeping us alive indefinitely (or at least as long as you'd live otherwise). People who I tend to follow\/agree with talk about it like this would be a nightmare future we should avoid.  &#x200B;  My arguments against this:  \\- Anything you feel is lost by this, you wouldn't feel. If you're seeking feeling some kind of genuine experience, where some suffering is required to reach an overall earned outcome, you would feel this. Your genuinity sensors are firing on overdrive, more than you could experience in the 'real' world.  \\- All positive experiences can be exaggerated to an otherwise impossible extent. What we think of as the peak happiness\/experience could be 0.00001% of what this system makes us feel. No matter what your brains preferred state is.  \\- In all likelihood, what we consider the 'real' world is probably some form of illusion anyway. Whether it's organic (some form of universe 'creating' this one as an illusion), artificial (a simulation in the mathematical\/computational sense), organic-artificial (eg. a 'dream'), or any kind of solipsism. It's definitely another topic to argue why this is the case, but the starting point should be assuming it's one of the many possibilities of a non-reality, rather than blindly assuming it's the one real top-level genuine reality. But that aside, if you believed the world was an illusion in some form, would it not be better to go one level deeper if it meant you felt a more positive experience?  \\- Any feeling of 'greater good' you have, or feeling\/intention about continuing the human race and ensuring our survival, you will feel that but to a more satisfying extent. Or, we could assume that's taken care of by the system we're plugged into.  \\- This direct brain manipulation could mean that you perceive existence for much longer. Similar to how people report that with certain drugs, their time 'under' feels a lot longer than realtime (I think DMT is an example of this). So not only are you experiencing an infinitely better existence, it can feel infinitely longer.  &#x200B;  I'm not trying to persuade anyone of the likelihood of this or how feasible it is, and I'm assuming certain 'features' of this system that might be unrealistic. But I'm arguing that if we had this option, hypothetically, it would be a utopian rather than dystopian future.","c_root_id_A":"fh8q6vv","c_root_id_B":"fh8pgo1","created_at_utc_A":1581365096,"created_at_utc_B":1581364658,"score_A":22,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"With everyone plugged into the one perfect system, there's now potentially a single point of failure for the lives of everyone plugged into it.  All it takes is one person with the skills and the desire, and they can change the parameters of the simulation, turn everyone's paradise into a torturous hellscape, or just straight up fry everyone's brain.","human_ref_B":"How long do you think this would last? What would be the point to keep these hooked up people alive and not just kill them to free up resources?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":438.0,"score_ratio":11.0}
+{"post_id":"f1vt4z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: There would be nothing wrong with the apparent 'dark' future, where we all end up hooked up to a system that directly stimulates our brain. \"Genuine\" existence has no real meaning or value. Everyone seems to think that advancements in technology are great, but that we need to avoid this dystopian future that we're heading towards. They think it would be depressing if no-one interacted in the real world anymore and were simply hooked up to a machine that stimulated our brains, or simulated a virtual existence. Let's assume this is a perfect system that can affect our brain however it chooses, keeping us alive indefinitely (or at least as long as you'd live otherwise). People who I tend to follow\/agree with talk about it like this would be a nightmare future we should avoid.  &#x200B;  My arguments against this:  \\- Anything you feel is lost by this, you wouldn't feel. If you're seeking feeling some kind of genuine experience, where some suffering is required to reach an overall earned outcome, you would feel this. Your genuinity sensors are firing on overdrive, more than you could experience in the 'real' world.  \\- All positive experiences can be exaggerated to an otherwise impossible extent. What we think of as the peak happiness\/experience could be 0.00001% of what this system makes us feel. No matter what your brains preferred state is.  \\- In all likelihood, what we consider the 'real' world is probably some form of illusion anyway. Whether it's organic (some form of universe 'creating' this one as an illusion), artificial (a simulation in the mathematical\/computational sense), organic-artificial (eg. a 'dream'), or any kind of solipsism. It's definitely another topic to argue why this is the case, but the starting point should be assuming it's one of the many possibilities of a non-reality, rather than blindly assuming it's the one real top-level genuine reality. But that aside, if you believed the world was an illusion in some form, would it not be better to go one level deeper if it meant you felt a more positive experience?  \\- Any feeling of 'greater good' you have, or feeling\/intention about continuing the human race and ensuring our survival, you will feel that but to a more satisfying extent. Or, we could assume that's taken care of by the system we're plugged into.  \\- This direct brain manipulation could mean that you perceive existence for much longer. Similar to how people report that with certain drugs, their time 'under' feels a lot longer than realtime (I think DMT is an example of this). So not only are you experiencing an infinitely better existence, it can feel infinitely longer.  &#x200B;  I'm not trying to persuade anyone of the likelihood of this or how feasible it is, and I'm assuming certain 'features' of this system that might be unrealistic. But I'm arguing that if we had this option, hypothetically, it would be a utopian rather than dystopian future.","c_root_id_A":"fh8svl0","c_root_id_B":"fh8qq86","created_at_utc_A":1581366682,"created_at_utc_B":1581365417,"score_A":11,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Here\u2019s where this gets dark.   Imagine actually doing this. It\u2019s be expensive right? The rich could do it. And do it better than the poor. In fact, the default state of humanity wouldn\u2019t be able to do it at all. *Most* of humanity won\u2019t be able to participate\u2014yet if it\u2019s any good *most* of humanity\u2019s resources are going to be pointed at supporting the few who can afford it.   That by itself isn\u2019t so much different than the present situation, except that a make believe world wholly disconnects society\u2019s most powerful from the real world the billions of the rest of humanity live in.   Imagine if bill gates could be living day-to-day in a reality without the suffering of others around.   The effect would be basically like if all of society\u2019s most powerful were addicted to a strong drug. Their interests and connection to the rest of society would wane. They would be able to basically pretend the world is something it isn\u2019t and they\u2019d have no interest in spending their money humanely. Unless you\u2019re saying the illusion of the world is imperfect, it perfectly isolated the elite from the left behind.  Now imagine how corrupt and violent the left behind world would become as the expensive simulation technology got more and more compelling. Would you steal\/embezzle for an impressive car? Maybe not. How about for literal heaven on earth? Uh, hell yes.","human_ref_B":"Are people aware they are hooked up? Have you ever gambled with real money vs. play money? People act differently. The real world has real risks, while a simulation does not. That means the emotions simulated by the simulation if people are aware it's a simulation will never been as potent as emotions in the real world. This means any simulation where people are aware they are in a simulation will never be as good as the real thing. If people aren't aware they are in a simulation then what are we even arguing?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1265.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
+{"post_id":"f1vt4z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: There would be nothing wrong with the apparent 'dark' future, where we all end up hooked up to a system that directly stimulates our brain. \"Genuine\" existence has no real meaning or value. Everyone seems to think that advancements in technology are great, but that we need to avoid this dystopian future that we're heading towards. They think it would be depressing if no-one interacted in the real world anymore and were simply hooked up to a machine that stimulated our brains, or simulated a virtual existence. Let's assume this is a perfect system that can affect our brain however it chooses, keeping us alive indefinitely (or at least as long as you'd live otherwise). People who I tend to follow\/agree with talk about it like this would be a nightmare future we should avoid.  &#x200B;  My arguments against this:  \\- Anything you feel is lost by this, you wouldn't feel. If you're seeking feeling some kind of genuine experience, where some suffering is required to reach an overall earned outcome, you would feel this. Your genuinity sensors are firing on overdrive, more than you could experience in the 'real' world.  \\- All positive experiences can be exaggerated to an otherwise impossible extent. What we think of as the peak happiness\/experience could be 0.00001% of what this system makes us feel. No matter what your brains preferred state is.  \\- In all likelihood, what we consider the 'real' world is probably some form of illusion anyway. Whether it's organic (some form of universe 'creating' this one as an illusion), artificial (a simulation in the mathematical\/computational sense), organic-artificial (eg. a 'dream'), or any kind of solipsism. It's definitely another topic to argue why this is the case, but the starting point should be assuming it's one of the many possibilities of a non-reality, rather than blindly assuming it's the one real top-level genuine reality. But that aside, if you believed the world was an illusion in some form, would it not be better to go one level deeper if it meant you felt a more positive experience?  \\- Any feeling of 'greater good' you have, or feeling\/intention about continuing the human race and ensuring our survival, you will feel that but to a more satisfying extent. Or, we could assume that's taken care of by the system we're plugged into.  \\- This direct brain manipulation could mean that you perceive existence for much longer. Similar to how people report that with certain drugs, their time 'under' feels a lot longer than realtime (I think DMT is an example of this). So not only are you experiencing an infinitely better existence, it can feel infinitely longer.  &#x200B;  I'm not trying to persuade anyone of the likelihood of this or how feasible it is, and I'm assuming certain 'features' of this system that might be unrealistic. But I'm arguing that if we had this option, hypothetically, it would be a utopian rather than dystopian future.","c_root_id_A":"fh8pgo1","c_root_id_B":"fh8svl0","created_at_utc_A":1581364658,"created_at_utc_B":1581366682,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"How long do you think this would last? What would be the point to keep these hooked up people alive and not just kill them to free up resources?","human_ref_B":"Here\u2019s where this gets dark.   Imagine actually doing this. It\u2019s be expensive right? The rich could do it. And do it better than the poor. In fact, the default state of humanity wouldn\u2019t be able to do it at all. *Most* of humanity won\u2019t be able to participate\u2014yet if it\u2019s any good *most* of humanity\u2019s resources are going to be pointed at supporting the few who can afford it.   That by itself isn\u2019t so much different than the present situation, except that a make believe world wholly disconnects society\u2019s most powerful from the real world the billions of the rest of humanity live in.   Imagine if bill gates could be living day-to-day in a reality without the suffering of others around.   The effect would be basically like if all of society\u2019s most powerful were addicted to a strong drug. Their interests and connection to the rest of society would wane. They would be able to basically pretend the world is something it isn\u2019t and they\u2019d have no interest in spending their money humanely. Unless you\u2019re saying the illusion of the world is imperfect, it perfectly isolated the elite from the left behind.  Now imagine how corrupt and violent the left behind world would become as the expensive simulation technology got more and more compelling. Would you steal\/embezzle for an impressive car? Maybe not. How about for literal heaven on earth? Uh, hell yes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2024.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
+{"post_id":"f1vt4z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: There would be nothing wrong with the apparent 'dark' future, where we all end up hooked up to a system that directly stimulates our brain. \"Genuine\" existence has no real meaning or value. Everyone seems to think that advancements in technology are great, but that we need to avoid this dystopian future that we're heading towards. They think it would be depressing if no-one interacted in the real world anymore and were simply hooked up to a machine that stimulated our brains, or simulated a virtual existence. Let's assume this is a perfect system that can affect our brain however it chooses, keeping us alive indefinitely (or at least as long as you'd live otherwise). People who I tend to follow\/agree with talk about it like this would be a nightmare future we should avoid.  &#x200B;  My arguments against this:  \\- Anything you feel is lost by this, you wouldn't feel. If you're seeking feeling some kind of genuine experience, where some suffering is required to reach an overall earned outcome, you would feel this. Your genuinity sensors are firing on overdrive, more than you could experience in the 'real' world.  \\- All positive experiences can be exaggerated to an otherwise impossible extent. What we think of as the peak happiness\/experience could be 0.00001% of what this system makes us feel. No matter what your brains preferred state is.  \\- In all likelihood, what we consider the 'real' world is probably some form of illusion anyway. Whether it's organic (some form of universe 'creating' this one as an illusion), artificial (a simulation in the mathematical\/computational sense), organic-artificial (eg. a 'dream'), or any kind of solipsism. It's definitely another topic to argue why this is the case, but the starting point should be assuming it's one of the many possibilities of a non-reality, rather than blindly assuming it's the one real top-level genuine reality. But that aside, if you believed the world was an illusion in some form, would it not be better to go one level deeper if it meant you felt a more positive experience?  \\- Any feeling of 'greater good' you have, or feeling\/intention about continuing the human race and ensuring our survival, you will feel that but to a more satisfying extent. Or, we could assume that's taken care of by the system we're plugged into.  \\- This direct brain manipulation could mean that you perceive existence for much longer. Similar to how people report that with certain drugs, their time 'under' feels a lot longer than realtime (I think DMT is an example of this). So not only are you experiencing an infinitely better existence, it can feel infinitely longer.  &#x200B;  I'm not trying to persuade anyone of the likelihood of this or how feasible it is, and I'm assuming certain 'features' of this system that might be unrealistic. But I'm arguing that if we had this option, hypothetically, it would be a utopian rather than dystopian future.","c_root_id_A":"fh8pgo1","c_root_id_B":"fh8qq86","created_at_utc_A":1581364658,"created_at_utc_B":1581365417,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"How long do you think this would last? What would be the point to keep these hooked up people alive and not just kill them to free up resources?","human_ref_B":"Are people aware they are hooked up? Have you ever gambled with real money vs. play money? People act differently. The real world has real risks, while a simulation does not. That means the emotions simulated by the simulation if people are aware it's a simulation will never been as potent as emotions in the real world. This means any simulation where people are aware they are in a simulation will never be as good as the real thing. If people aren't aware they are in a simulation then what are we even arguing?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":759.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"f1vt4z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: There would be nothing wrong with the apparent 'dark' future, where we all end up hooked up to a system that directly stimulates our brain. \"Genuine\" existence has no real meaning or value. Everyone seems to think that advancements in technology are great, but that we need to avoid this dystopian future that we're heading towards. They think it would be depressing if no-one interacted in the real world anymore and were simply hooked up to a machine that stimulated our brains, or simulated a virtual existence. Let's assume this is a perfect system that can affect our brain however it chooses, keeping us alive indefinitely (or at least as long as you'd live otherwise). People who I tend to follow\/agree with talk about it like this would be a nightmare future we should avoid.  &#x200B;  My arguments against this:  \\- Anything you feel is lost by this, you wouldn't feel. If you're seeking feeling some kind of genuine experience, where some suffering is required to reach an overall earned outcome, you would feel this. Your genuinity sensors are firing on overdrive, more than you could experience in the 'real' world.  \\- All positive experiences can be exaggerated to an otherwise impossible extent. What we think of as the peak happiness\/experience could be 0.00001% of what this system makes us feel. No matter what your brains preferred state is.  \\- In all likelihood, what we consider the 'real' world is probably some form of illusion anyway. Whether it's organic (some form of universe 'creating' this one as an illusion), artificial (a simulation in the mathematical\/computational sense), organic-artificial (eg. a 'dream'), or any kind of solipsism. It's definitely another topic to argue why this is the case, but the starting point should be assuming it's one of the many possibilities of a non-reality, rather than blindly assuming it's the one real top-level genuine reality. But that aside, if you believed the world was an illusion in some form, would it not be better to go one level deeper if it meant you felt a more positive experience?  \\- Any feeling of 'greater good' you have, or feeling\/intention about continuing the human race and ensuring our survival, you will feel that but to a more satisfying extent. Or, we could assume that's taken care of by the system we're plugged into.  \\- This direct brain manipulation could mean that you perceive existence for much longer. Similar to how people report that with certain drugs, their time 'under' feels a lot longer than realtime (I think DMT is an example of this). So not only are you experiencing an infinitely better existence, it can feel infinitely longer.  &#x200B;  I'm not trying to persuade anyone of the likelihood of this or how feasible it is, and I'm assuming certain 'features' of this system that might be unrealistic. But I'm arguing that if we had this option, hypothetically, it would be a utopian rather than dystopian future.","c_root_id_A":"fh8pgo1","c_root_id_B":"fh8zsge","created_at_utc_A":1581364658,"created_at_utc_B":1581370738,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"How long do you think this would last? What would be the point to keep these hooked up people alive and not just kill them to free up resources?","human_ref_B":"> All positive experiences can be exaggerated to an otherwise impossible extent. What we think of as the peak happiness\/experience could be 0.00001% of what this system makes us feel. No matter what your brains preferred state is.  I doubt that that would be possible with the human mind because of the hedonic treadmill effect: human brains always tend to return to the same happiness baseline\/set point.  In other words: a permanent state of happiness is not possible, because if you keep feeding intense pleasurable\/happy sensations or thoughts into the brain, it basically gets *desensitized* to happiness, and you would need to feed it even more happy sensations to keep it feeling happy, ad infinitum...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6080.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"8ypyds","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: Hate speech should not be a crime unless specific threats are made I consider myself both left and libertarian leaning. I think Affirmative Action is a good idea for the most part, I don't take a hardline stance against illegal immigration (if anything, I think the borders should be protected but it should be much easier to immigrate legally than it is now, and families should not be separated), and I think racial nationalists of all colors are generally unethical scumbags.  However, I'm a very strong believer that in order to protect free speech for decent people, you have to project the free speech of jerks too. If we make exceptions to free speech, no matter how reasonable they are, there's no precedent for preventing the subjugation of more reasonable and palatable speech.  I think hate speech should only be a crime when specific threats or suggestions are made. If someone holds up a sign saying \"Kill the (insert group here)\" they're an asshole, and people should use their own right to free speech to call them out on it. But unless there's a specific call to violence made, like for example someone names a place and suggests people commit violent acts there tomorrow or next week or next year, I don't think their words go beyond what should be included in free speech.  I think making Holocaust denial illegal is a bad idea, for example. People should have the right to believe and express whatever beliefs they want, no matter how unfounded in truth they are. In the case of Holocaust denial in particular, though Holocaust deniers are usually hateful people, sometimes people just believe weird things. I wouldn't be surprised if there's even a few Jewish Holocaust denialists out there, I know a black guy who thinks African slavery is a myth.   I think banning expression of such opinions is counter-productive because making a belief forbidden only makes it more appealing to people inclined towards those beliefs, and it makes the establishment that bans that belief have less of a moral high ground.   I think an open and free society will naturally become more progressive and tolerant over time and there's no need for laws against offensive speech for this reason.  I should note that I think free speech only protects people from legal penalties, and I think if some loudmouth actor or actress is saying stupid prejudicial things whoever is hiring them should have the right to fire them.   But ultimately it bothers me that a lot of left wingers believe free speech should be limited when it comes to expressing offensive ideas.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e2czhnm","c_root_id_B":"e2cz099","created_at_utc_A":1531541490,"created_at_utc_B":1531540855,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So.... you're all good with billboards being put up all over town saying \"The gays have AIDS and should die\". No specific threat is made, but it's still very harmful.","human_ref_B":"I don't think that this is a reasonable argument because I don't think there's any basis to think that a name is required for a call to violence to result in violence, I mean I don't think Hitler was really mentioning any names during his speeches, but he was very successful in getting people to commit genocide.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":635.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"5e0tv7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: I don't think my uphill battle as a black female PhD student is worth it I see other women having a decent time.They have children, they have boyfriends, they have worries but they are fairly typical. It seems boring but they are extremely happy from what I can tell. There is probably something wrong with me. I do like clothes I suppose and do likes being presentable but I do not like shopping and it is not a huge deal to me.   I want to be normal. Like what do most other women major in? How do they not like Mathematics, Physics, Engineering and CS? What do most women do? For fun? How do other women have time to dedicate a lot of time to fashion and beauty and for it to be lucrative? How do other women not spend hours on a computer? What are their dreams? A lot of my social media friends are bartenders, beauty bloggers, office assistants in their mid-twenties--is this fulfilling?  I already knew I was a freak when I was a child. I don't like rules. I don't like society. It is quietly against my goals. I am painfully honest and I treat everyone the same--whether you are a clerk at CVS or an esteemed professor at Harvard. I don't think I am intelligent but somehow I found myself at Ivy Leagues and MIT. I want to inspire students like I was inspired but I don't think it's worth it. I feel I am less productive because I fantasize about what life could be like. I don't think I can have it all--especially as a black woman.  I am a commodity in my engineering field but in the real world it's not like it makes me more attractive to men (probably less) and more fun and relatable.","c_root_id_A":"da8u423","c_root_id_B":"da8t7i6","created_at_utc_A":1479686995,"created_at_utc_B":1479685744,"score_A":23,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I bet if you got inside the minds of all your friends, I bet they wish they could be as smart, determined and as motivated as you. Have you considered how different you and your friends will be ten or 20 years into the future. Do you know what percent of all people get into a PhD program? Do you know what percent of those people are black and female?   I believe you are one of the very few, and you should be very proud of everything you've done so far and all the great things you'll be able to accomplish with your brain.  I wish you luck in all of your future endeavors and I hope you find what you are looking for. Semper Fidelis.","human_ref_B":"You can't force yourself to want what others want in pursuit of normality. Accepting yourself and your desires is what you need to work on - which may include seeing a therapist and it's not because you are a freak, more people could use it than most people realize.   Many people have inner lives that you just don't see, as they don't see yours, and people aren't always as happy as they seem with their seemingly normal lives. If you pursue normal, you'd be amongst those people just living a boring life and hating it inside.  This also means accepting that yeah, maybe you won't be attractive to some men because you've taken up a career that isn't seen as feminine. But it's not about how many men you're attractive to, because it's not going to be fun living with one that wouldn't be able to handle whatever interests you have anyway.   If anything it's good to filter out the ones who are wrong for you so that you find those who are right. Acting normal and giving up on your own genuine interests isn't going to help with that. It's a recipe for disaster - I've seen these kinds of couples in my family, you really don't want to be like them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1251.0,"score_ratio":2.3}
+{"post_id":"5e0tv7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: I don't think my uphill battle as a black female PhD student is worth it I see other women having a decent time.They have children, they have boyfriends, they have worries but they are fairly typical. It seems boring but they are extremely happy from what I can tell. There is probably something wrong with me. I do like clothes I suppose and do likes being presentable but I do not like shopping and it is not a huge deal to me.   I want to be normal. Like what do most other women major in? How do they not like Mathematics, Physics, Engineering and CS? What do most women do? For fun? How do other women have time to dedicate a lot of time to fashion and beauty and for it to be lucrative? How do other women not spend hours on a computer? What are their dreams? A lot of my social media friends are bartenders, beauty bloggers, office assistants in their mid-twenties--is this fulfilling?  I already knew I was a freak when I was a child. I don't like rules. I don't like society. It is quietly against my goals. I am painfully honest and I treat everyone the same--whether you are a clerk at CVS or an esteemed professor at Harvard. I don't think I am intelligent but somehow I found myself at Ivy Leagues and MIT. I want to inspire students like I was inspired but I don't think it's worth it. I feel I am less productive because I fantasize about what life could be like. I don't think I can have it all--especially as a black woman.  I am a commodity in my engineering field but in the real world it's not like it makes me more attractive to men (probably less) and more fun and relatable.","c_root_id_A":"da8to45","c_root_id_B":"da8u423","created_at_utc_A":1479686388,"created_at_utc_B":1479686995,"score_A":8,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"What do you really want?   I'm a white woman, and I major in social work, because that's where most of my skills line up, and I want to be an agent for good change in my communities.   You must have had a reason to commit so much time and money into your PhD program in the first place. Really, I commend anyone fighting that battle, even if they are not a black female. That is some ridiculously hard work! I especially think you should pursue it \/because\/ you think you are not that smart. Our world needs more humble, smart people in positions of relative authority!   And I think there will be plenty of young black women who need the inspiration you will give, just by having completed your PhD. What you do with it next could make you more of an inspiration.   However... you are a person. Not some vague idea just existing to inspire people. What are you pursuing in academia? You mention being in engineering, but that your rarity in the real world doesn't do much for your attractiveness-level-thing. Does that matter to you? What kind of men are you interested in? Generally, worrying after men who aren't interested in who you are\/what interests you is a waste of time.    Also, do your friends see your value? Do the people around you affirm you and tell you truths about who you are? It seems from the tone of your post that you do not see what is true and good about yourself (your interests, qualities, intelligence, skill) as good things. Is that accurate?","human_ref_B":"I bet if you got inside the minds of all your friends, I bet they wish they could be as smart, determined and as motivated as you. Have you considered how different you and your friends will be ten or 20 years into the future. Do you know what percent of all people get into a PhD program? Do you know what percent of those people are black and female?   I believe you are one of the very few, and you should be very proud of everything you've done so far and all the great things you'll be able to accomplish with your brain.  I wish you luck in all of your future endeavors and I hope you find what you are looking for. Semper Fidelis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":607.0,"score_ratio":2.875}
+{"post_id":"5e0tv7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: I don't think my uphill battle as a black female PhD student is worth it I see other women having a decent time.They have children, they have boyfriends, they have worries but they are fairly typical. It seems boring but they are extremely happy from what I can tell. There is probably something wrong with me. I do like clothes I suppose and do likes being presentable but I do not like shopping and it is not a huge deal to me.   I want to be normal. Like what do most other women major in? How do they not like Mathematics, Physics, Engineering and CS? What do most women do? For fun? How do other women have time to dedicate a lot of time to fashion and beauty and for it to be lucrative? How do other women not spend hours on a computer? What are their dreams? A lot of my social media friends are bartenders, beauty bloggers, office assistants in their mid-twenties--is this fulfilling?  I already knew I was a freak when I was a child. I don't like rules. I don't like society. It is quietly against my goals. I am painfully honest and I treat everyone the same--whether you are a clerk at CVS or an esteemed professor at Harvard. I don't think I am intelligent but somehow I found myself at Ivy Leagues and MIT. I want to inspire students like I was inspired but I don't think it's worth it. I feel I am less productive because I fantasize about what life could be like. I don't think I can have it all--especially as a black woman.  I am a commodity in my engineering field but in the real world it's not like it makes me more attractive to men (probably less) and more fun and relatable.","c_root_id_A":"da8tpy1","c_root_id_B":"da8u423","created_at_utc_A":1479686457,"created_at_utc_B":1479686995,"score_A":7,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"I don't know how different an MIT grad program is from my own current situation, but here's my life right now: I'm an undergrad at an Ivy League institution studying computer science. Most of my best friends on campus are women of color in engineering (most of whom happen to be queer, but that's neither here nor there in terms of your situation). Most of them are in really solid relationships with their significant others, almost none of whom are also STEM.  Basically, when you say that you \"want to be normal,\" I hear you - patriarchy dictates that women \"aren't supposed to\" be engineers, particularly women of color. However, you have to remember that everyone is going through their own struggles of self-consciousness and life-goal crises. Many bartenders I know look at people like you - successful, highly-educated folks killing it at grad school - and wish they could be in your shoes. Many office assistants are horribly unhappy with their jobs, even if their social media feeds don't show it.  The question you should ask is this: does what I'm doing make me happy? Not: does it make me a lesser romantic prospect? Not: am I a freak? I can pretty definitively say you're not a freak - as someone who's friends with a lot of people in similar positions to yours, I feel their pain and self-confidence issues, but I can also see the joy on their faces when they finish an abstract algebra problem set with a day to spare. If the work you're doing is fun and engaging, keep at it - romance will likely happen regardless of what your job is, and a lot of the people you'll meet at conferences are going to be a lot more intellectually savvy than people you'd meet as a bartender. (If that's not something you need, that's fine - you don't have to date people who are book-smart! But if it's no biggie, try it out.)  tl;dr The Stanford Duck Syndrome","human_ref_B":"I bet if you got inside the minds of all your friends, I bet they wish they could be as smart, determined and as motivated as you. Have you considered how different you and your friends will be ten or 20 years into the future. Do you know what percent of all people get into a PhD program? Do you know what percent of those people are black and female?   I believe you are one of the very few, and you should be very proud of everything you've done so far and all the great things you'll be able to accomplish with your brain.  I wish you luck in all of your future endeavors and I hope you find what you are looking for. Semper Fidelis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":538.0,"score_ratio":3.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"5e0tv7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: I don't think my uphill battle as a black female PhD student is worth it I see other women having a decent time.They have children, they have boyfriends, they have worries but they are fairly typical. It seems boring but they are extremely happy from what I can tell. There is probably something wrong with me. I do like clothes I suppose and do likes being presentable but I do not like shopping and it is not a huge deal to me.   I want to be normal. Like what do most other women major in? How do they not like Mathematics, Physics, Engineering and CS? What do most women do? For fun? How do other women have time to dedicate a lot of time to fashion and beauty and for it to be lucrative? How do other women not spend hours on a computer? What are their dreams? A lot of my social media friends are bartenders, beauty bloggers, office assistants in their mid-twenties--is this fulfilling?  I already knew I was a freak when I was a child. I don't like rules. I don't like society. It is quietly against my goals. I am painfully honest and I treat everyone the same--whether you are a clerk at CVS or an esteemed professor at Harvard. I don't think I am intelligent but somehow I found myself at Ivy Leagues and MIT. I want to inspire students like I was inspired but I don't think it's worth it. I feel I am less productive because I fantasize about what life could be like. I don't think I can have it all--especially as a black woman.  I am a commodity in my engineering field but in the real world it's not like it makes me more attractive to men (probably less) and more fun and relatable.","c_root_id_A":"da8wbki","c_root_id_B":"da8ukrd","created_at_utc_A":1479690568,"created_at_utc_B":1479687634,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Just the fact that you are a graduate student at MIT puts you into a very rare elite group of people.  You are extremely privileged to have such a bright mind and to have such an opportunity before you.  Please don't give up on it.  Your education will forever set you apart from the \"normal\" people.  The opportunities that lie before you are almost endless compared to just your average highschool graduate that dropped out of community college.  You say there is something wrong with you because your mind is good at math and science. . . there is nothing wrong with that.  The world needs more bright educated people.  Don't give up we are counting on you!","human_ref_B":"I'm in the final years of my Economics Ph.D. at a top 5 school. It sounds to me like you might have depression. I was diagnosed with depression last year, and going in for treatment (therapy in conjunction with anti-depressants) was the best decision I ever made. Depression is extremely common among grad students. My understanding is that most schools offer free psychological counseling. Go in and talk with someone. Even if you don't have clinical depression talking it out with a professional can be extremely helpful.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2934.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzvz7nh","c_root_id_B":"hzw23no","created_at_utc_A":1646773329,"created_at_utc_B":1646774556,"score_A":10,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Speaking from professional experience, the DSM is a tool whose purpose is mainly twofold.   First to use a standard set of diagnostic tools to help accurately diagnose a client and to develop the appropriate treatment plan.   Second to use amongst other clinicians so that if a client goes to see multiple clinicians, the treatment regime stays consistent and each clinician doesn't have to start the diagnosis process over and their treatments aren't wildly different.   In essence, it's a tool that professionals use to do their job.   The fact of the matter is most common people don't even know what the DSM is let alone what it stands for or what its purpose is.   The fact that clinically meaningful terms such as depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and bipolar have made it into the general lexicon isn't the fault of the DSM.  While I agree that pharmaceutical interventions are overused, especially in the US, the same could be said for general medicine.","human_ref_B":"The DSM was never intended to be used by people who aren\u2019t practicing psychologists or psychiatrists. Much like medical texts are intended for doctors, the abuse of professional texts by laypeople isn\u2019t the fault of the textbooks, they are usefully for actual professionals. The problem is with armchair amateur psychologists that treat the DSM like it\u2019s a bible when it\u2019s literally amended version to version to best serve the professional community and their patients.  What you\u2019re describing sounds more like pathologizing human behavior. It\u2019s typical for someone with a hammer to see a problem as a nail. Again human behavior is hard to correct, even in the professionals we trust to treat our mental health. Still, a flawed system with concrete scientific basis to improve itself is better than no system at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1227.0,"score_ratio":1.9}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzw23no","c_root_id_B":"hzvs6vw","created_at_utc_A":1646774556,"created_at_utc_B":1646770693,"score_A":19,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The DSM was never intended to be used by people who aren\u2019t practicing psychologists or psychiatrists. Much like medical texts are intended for doctors, the abuse of professional texts by laypeople isn\u2019t the fault of the textbooks, they are usefully for actual professionals. The problem is with armchair amateur psychologists that treat the DSM like it\u2019s a bible when it\u2019s literally amended version to version to best serve the professional community and their patients.  What you\u2019re describing sounds more like pathologizing human behavior. It\u2019s typical for someone with a hammer to see a problem as a nail. Again human behavior is hard to correct, even in the professionals we trust to treat our mental health. Still, a flawed system with concrete scientific basis to improve itself is better than no system at all.","human_ref_B":"What do you think the DSM is exactly?  What do you think it's used for by professionals?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3863.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzw23no","c_root_id_B":"hzvtp3k","created_at_utc_A":1646774556,"created_at_utc_B":1646771254,"score_A":19,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The DSM was never intended to be used by people who aren\u2019t practicing psychologists or psychiatrists. Much like medical texts are intended for doctors, the abuse of professional texts by laypeople isn\u2019t the fault of the textbooks, they are usefully for actual professionals. The problem is with armchair amateur psychologists that treat the DSM like it\u2019s a bible when it\u2019s literally amended version to version to best serve the professional community and their patients.  What you\u2019re describing sounds more like pathologizing human behavior. It\u2019s typical for someone with a hammer to see a problem as a nail. Again human behavior is hard to correct, even in the professionals we trust to treat our mental health. Still, a flawed system with concrete scientific basis to improve itself is better than no system at all.","human_ref_B":"The *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual* is exactly that, a manual and it is updated based on the most current psychiatric, psychosocial, neurological, and statistical studies. It's primary purpose is to act as reference material and an industry standard.  If people choose to misinterpret it or apply it in contexts where it isn't suitable, it doesn't mean the manual is at fault. If the public starts debating whether or not the appendix has value in the human body, it doesn't mean *Gray's Anatomy* is invalid or harmful.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3302.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzvs6vw","c_root_id_B":"hzvz7nh","created_at_utc_A":1646770693,"created_at_utc_B":1646773329,"score_A":3,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"What do you think the DSM is exactly?  What do you think it's used for by professionals?","human_ref_B":"Speaking from professional experience, the DSM is a tool whose purpose is mainly twofold.   First to use a standard set of diagnostic tools to help accurately diagnose a client and to develop the appropriate treatment plan.   Second to use amongst other clinicians so that if a client goes to see multiple clinicians, the treatment regime stays consistent and each clinician doesn't have to start the diagnosis process over and their treatments aren't wildly different.   In essence, it's a tool that professionals use to do their job.   The fact of the matter is most common people don't even know what the DSM is let alone what it stands for or what its purpose is.   The fact that clinically meaningful terms such as depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and bipolar have made it into the general lexicon isn't the fault of the DSM.  While I agree that pharmaceutical interventions are overused, especially in the US, the same could be said for general medicine.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2636.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzvz7nh","c_root_id_B":"hzvtp3k","created_at_utc_A":1646773329,"created_at_utc_B":1646771254,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Speaking from professional experience, the DSM is a tool whose purpose is mainly twofold.   First to use a standard set of diagnostic tools to help accurately diagnose a client and to develop the appropriate treatment plan.   Second to use amongst other clinicians so that if a client goes to see multiple clinicians, the treatment regime stays consistent and each clinician doesn't have to start the diagnosis process over and their treatments aren't wildly different.   In essence, it's a tool that professionals use to do their job.   The fact of the matter is most common people don't even know what the DSM is let alone what it stands for or what its purpose is.   The fact that clinically meaningful terms such as depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and bipolar have made it into the general lexicon isn't the fault of the DSM.  While I agree that pharmaceutical interventions are overused, especially in the US, the same could be said for general medicine.","human_ref_B":"The *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual* is exactly that, a manual and it is updated based on the most current psychiatric, psychosocial, neurological, and statistical studies. It's primary purpose is to act as reference material and an industry standard.  If people choose to misinterpret it or apply it in contexts where it isn't suitable, it doesn't mean the manual is at fault. If the public starts debating whether or not the appendix has value in the human body, it doesn't mean *Gray's Anatomy* is invalid or harmful.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2075.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzvs6vw","c_root_id_B":"hzx20qc","created_at_utc_A":1646770693,"created_at_utc_B":1646790461,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"What do you think the DSM is exactly?  What do you think it's used for by professionals?","human_ref_B":"How are we supposed to diagnose mental illness then? Vibes? A oujia board?   Mental and physical illnesses are both illnesses and both require specific, detailed, scientific diagnostic criteria.   A book doesn\u2019t create the culture you talk about and based on the fact people fake physical illnesses too, you can\u2019t get rid of it. If we treated mental and physical illnesses more similarly with treatment plans, the understanding of friends, family, and employers when time off or specific things are needed, and it\u2019s seen as a legit roadblock instead of something you just get over, the culture will get better. Removal of the DSM will only further invalidate the existence of mental illness and hinder people seeing help because it would become more subjective which is BAD for consistency and accuracy of treatment.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19768.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzvtp3k","c_root_id_B":"hzx20qc","created_at_utc_A":1646771254,"created_at_utc_B":1646790461,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual* is exactly that, a manual and it is updated based on the most current psychiatric, psychosocial, neurological, and statistical studies. It's primary purpose is to act as reference material and an industry standard.  If people choose to misinterpret it or apply it in contexts where it isn't suitable, it doesn't mean the manual is at fault. If the public starts debating whether or not the appendix has value in the human body, it doesn't mean *Gray's Anatomy* is invalid or harmful.","human_ref_B":"How are we supposed to diagnose mental illness then? Vibes? A oujia board?   Mental and physical illnesses are both illnesses and both require specific, detailed, scientific diagnostic criteria.   A book doesn\u2019t create the culture you talk about and based on the fact people fake physical illnesses too, you can\u2019t get rid of it. If we treated mental and physical illnesses more similarly with treatment plans, the understanding of friends, family, and employers when time off or specific things are needed, and it\u2019s seen as a legit roadblock instead of something you just get over, the culture will get better. Removal of the DSM will only further invalidate the existence of mental illness and hinder people seeing help because it would become more subjective which is BAD for consistency and accuracy of treatment.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19207.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzx20qc","c_root_id_B":"hzwy2t4","created_at_utc_A":1646790461,"created_at_utc_B":1646788670,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"How are we supposed to diagnose mental illness then? Vibes? A oujia board?   Mental and physical illnesses are both illnesses and both require specific, detailed, scientific diagnostic criteria.   A book doesn\u2019t create the culture you talk about and based on the fact people fake physical illnesses too, you can\u2019t get rid of it. If we treated mental and physical illnesses more similarly with treatment plans, the understanding of friends, family, and employers when time off or specific things are needed, and it\u2019s seen as a legit roadblock instead of something you just get over, the culture will get better. Removal of the DSM will only further invalidate the existence of mental illness and hinder people seeing help because it would become more subjective which is BAD for consistency and accuracy of treatment.","human_ref_B":"To obtain insurance coverage for psychotherapy, you need to have a valid diagnosis.  And the DSM is helpful in providing a diagnosis.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1791.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzxwdxp","c_root_id_B":"hzy4ffj","created_at_utc_A":1646805895,"created_at_utc_B":1646811623,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Not to change you mind but:  >people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things.  Its also because it means you're not alone. Mental illness specifically can be really isolating, as opposed to physical illnesses. Especially when the symptoms are things that neurotypical people experience less frequently.","human_ref_B":"Self diagnosis is a bad thing.   Diagnostic tools used by medical professionals are a far cry from a random kid self diagnosing themselves with everything.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5728.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzwy2t4","c_root_id_B":"hzxwdxp","created_at_utc_A":1646788670,"created_at_utc_B":1646805895,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"To obtain insurance coverage for psychotherapy, you need to have a valid diagnosis.  And the DSM is helpful in providing a diagnosis.","human_ref_B":"Not to change you mind but:  >people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things.  Its also because it means you're not alone. Mental illness specifically can be really isolating, as opposed to physical illnesses. Especially when the symptoms are things that neurotypical people experience less frequently.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17225.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzy4ffj","c_root_id_B":"hzvs6vw","created_at_utc_A":1646811623,"created_at_utc_B":1646770693,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Self diagnosis is a bad thing.   Diagnostic tools used by medical professionals are a far cry from a random kid self diagnosing themselves with everything.","human_ref_B":"What do you think the DSM is exactly?  What do you think it's used for by professionals?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":40930.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzvtp3k","c_root_id_B":"hzy4ffj","created_at_utc_A":1646771254,"created_at_utc_B":1646811623,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual* is exactly that, a manual and it is updated based on the most current psychiatric, psychosocial, neurological, and statistical studies. It's primary purpose is to act as reference material and an industry standard.  If people choose to misinterpret it or apply it in contexts where it isn't suitable, it doesn't mean the manual is at fault. If the public starts debating whether or not the appendix has value in the human body, it doesn't mean *Gray's Anatomy* is invalid or harmful.","human_ref_B":"Self diagnosis is a bad thing.   Diagnostic tools used by medical professionals are a far cry from a random kid self diagnosing themselves with everything.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":40369.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzy4ffj","c_root_id_B":"hzx9ty9","created_at_utc_A":1646811623,"created_at_utc_B":1646793958,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Self diagnosis is a bad thing.   Diagnostic tools used by medical professionals are a far cry from a random kid self diagnosing themselves with everything.","human_ref_B":"I suffer from severe mental health conditions related to my military service and traumatic head injuries.  Some respond to pharmaceuticals. Some don't. All require other types of therapeutic management.  A diagnosis is a requirement for treatment. That's just how medicine works. That treatment can be a prescription for exercise and diet, or it can be a prescription for pharmaceuticals, or it can be a referral to a therapist, or it can be something like invasive surgery. But, there has to be an underlying REASON for WHY a physician is recommending a treatment protocol.  That reason can't be \"Well, it just seems like something to do.\"  Here's the important bit that only a few psychiatrists will share (mine happens to be one of them), good psychiatrists know that the diagnostic categories are just a gateway to treatment. They really don't mean much of anything and good doctors don't really pay much attention to the labels. They pay attention to how well patients respond to treatment. And they adjust treatment using signs and symptoms to guide them, not the DSM.  All it really functions as is a starting point for entering into a treatment protocol. And, after a lengthy period of time and refinement, maybe it can be a landing place if it matters to a patient what their condition is labeled.     People who aren't trained diagnosticians using the DSM are rightly thought of with about the same level of respect as monkey's using a graphing calculator.  They may be having fun, but whatever they are doing, it isn't using the tool appropriately.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17665.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzxt91u","c_root_id_B":"hzy4ffj","created_at_utc_A":1646803942,"created_at_utc_B":1646811623,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Are you American? Everything you are saying can be assuaged with one fact. In the US, most insurance companies will not pay for therapy or psychiatry without a diagnostic code. In other words, the DSM has to be used like that, or no one will get any mental health treatment at all.","human_ref_B":"Self diagnosis is a bad thing.   Diagnostic tools used by medical professionals are a far cry from a random kid self diagnosing themselves with everything.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7681.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzy4ffj","c_root_id_B":"hzwy2t4","created_at_utc_A":1646811623,"created_at_utc_B":1646788670,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Self diagnosis is a bad thing.   Diagnostic tools used by medical professionals are a far cry from a random kid self diagnosing themselves with everything.","human_ref_B":"To obtain insurance coverage for psychotherapy, you need to have a valid diagnosis.  And the DSM is helpful in providing a diagnosis.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22953.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzwy2t4","c_root_id_B":"hzx9ty9","created_at_utc_A":1646788670,"created_at_utc_B":1646793958,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"To obtain insurance coverage for psychotherapy, you need to have a valid diagnosis.  And the DSM is helpful in providing a diagnosis.","human_ref_B":"I suffer from severe mental health conditions related to my military service and traumatic head injuries.  Some respond to pharmaceuticals. Some don't. All require other types of therapeutic management.  A diagnosis is a requirement for treatment. That's just how medicine works. That treatment can be a prescription for exercise and diet, or it can be a prescription for pharmaceuticals, or it can be a referral to a therapist, or it can be something like invasive surgery. But, there has to be an underlying REASON for WHY a physician is recommending a treatment protocol.  That reason can't be \"Well, it just seems like something to do.\"  Here's the important bit that only a few psychiatrists will share (mine happens to be one of them), good psychiatrists know that the diagnostic categories are just a gateway to treatment. They really don't mean much of anything and good doctors don't really pay much attention to the labels. They pay attention to how well patients respond to treatment. And they adjust treatment using signs and symptoms to guide them, not the DSM.  All it really functions as is a starting point for entering into a treatment protocol. And, after a lengthy period of time and refinement, maybe it can be a landing place if it matters to a patient what their condition is labeled.     People who aren't trained diagnosticians using the DSM are rightly thought of with about the same level of respect as monkey's using a graphing calculator.  They may be having fun, but whatever they are doing, it isn't using the tool appropriately.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5288.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"t9pkz0","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).","c_root_id_A":"hzwy2t4","c_root_id_B":"hzxt91u","created_at_utc_A":1646788670,"created_at_utc_B":1646803942,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"To obtain insurance coverage for psychotherapy, you need to have a valid diagnosis.  And the DSM is helpful in providing a diagnosis.","human_ref_B":"Are you American? Everything you are saying can be assuaged with one fact. In the US, most insurance companies will not pay for therapy or psychiatry without a diagnostic code. In other words, the DSM has to be used like that, or no one will get any mental health treatment at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15272.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"f9bx9z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: No one has any real idea how to end homelessness in America I live in California, a state frequently criticized for its amount of homeless residents, and rightfully so since 20% of the nation's homeless resides in California (according to the non-profit streetsteam.org).   That is clearly a significant number, and it seems easy to point the finger at all of the policies created by Californian politicians that are not working. However, that is all it seems people ever do; no one provides a clear plan on how to truly fight homelessness. They may suggests providing more services for the homeless, while others say we need to provide more shelters to help them restart their lives. Some say we have enough of those services, the budget is bloated and we need to actually be stricter on who receives aid, in order to incentivize homeless individuals back in to working. No matter what opinion or idea I hear it all seems to be just a small alteration to what currently exist, rather than an actual solution. This is because no one actually has a solution.   California may house 20% of the homeless population, but homelessness is a nationwide epidemic. According to endhomelessness.org, as of 2018, the top 5 states with the most homeless were California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Washington. Before migrating to California, I lived in Connecticut and Florida. While in Connecticut I would frequently visit NYC which is has the highest concentration of homeless in the entire country, again according to endhomlessness.org. In Florida I lived on the panhandle in a town called Navarre which is adjacent to Pensacola. In this area I encountered less homeless people than NYC and CA but their presence was not minimal.  Texas, Florida, New York, and California, all large and popular states but very different places to live. The question is why are these states struggling so much with the homelessness? I would be willing to bet that these 4 states have some different policies on helping fight homelessness, but these different policies equal the similar results. At least, according to endhomelessness.org, TX, FL, and CA all had a drop in total homelessness since 2007, but admittedly CA drop was only 1%. The website seems to suggest this drop was mainly in homeless veterans, but that \"homeless individuals\" are experience far less progress.   While there has been progress across the country on homelessness, the country is still nowhere near a solution on dealing with the issue. While services exist that help shelter and support the homeless, they require a large amount of time, money, and effort from dedicated individuals to work closely with individual homeless people in order to help them rise. While every organization fighting homelessness needs more funding, providing more funding does not necessarily translate into a decrease in homelessness. This is due to the obstacles many homeless face in restarting their lives. Some are pulled back down by personal vices, such as drugs and alcohol, others are restrained by trauma and mental illness. Some homeless are unaware of the services out there to assist them, while others utilize every service they can only to struggle finding an employer willing to hire them. There are also many non-government groups that help fight homelessness such as streets team, the non-profit I cited earlier, and churches. These organizations do a great job and I encourage people to support them, but their efforts are not enough to ultimately combat the homeless epidemic.   I think everyone wants to fight and end homelessness. I think everyone wants those struggling to be treated with compassion. I think there are a lot of ideas currently argued that will \"solve\" the issue, but I do not think there is any clear answer on how to handle homelessness. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"fiqwagx","c_root_id_B":"fiqtsub","created_at_utc_A":1582652802,"created_at_utc_B":1582651585,"score_A":13,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"We have lots of ideas. Just no viable way to inact them.   We could build more houses and give them away, move homeless ppl to existing but empty homes, give them rent money, put all of them in a facility, ship them to another country, etc.   The ideas are endless. However every single one has significant regulatory, legal, or moral barriers that make implementation difficult or impossible.","human_ref_B":"That vast majority of homeless people are mentally ill, lacking in opportunity, or simply temporarily down. There are absolutely programs that can improve all of those issues. While ending homelessness entirely may be unrealistic, it is absolutely realistic to provide care for the severely mentally ill, training and education for those lacking in opportunity, and a social safety net for those down on their luck.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1217.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"f9bx9z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: No one has any real idea how to end homelessness in America I live in California, a state frequently criticized for its amount of homeless residents, and rightfully so since 20% of the nation's homeless resides in California (according to the non-profit streetsteam.org).   That is clearly a significant number, and it seems easy to point the finger at all of the policies created by Californian politicians that are not working. However, that is all it seems people ever do; no one provides a clear plan on how to truly fight homelessness. They may suggests providing more services for the homeless, while others say we need to provide more shelters to help them restart their lives. Some say we have enough of those services, the budget is bloated and we need to actually be stricter on who receives aid, in order to incentivize homeless individuals back in to working. No matter what opinion or idea I hear it all seems to be just a small alteration to what currently exist, rather than an actual solution. This is because no one actually has a solution.   California may house 20% of the homeless population, but homelessness is a nationwide epidemic. According to endhomelessness.org, as of 2018, the top 5 states with the most homeless were California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Washington. Before migrating to California, I lived in Connecticut and Florida. While in Connecticut I would frequently visit NYC which is has the highest concentration of homeless in the entire country, again according to endhomlessness.org. In Florida I lived on the panhandle in a town called Navarre which is adjacent to Pensacola. In this area I encountered less homeless people than NYC and CA but their presence was not minimal.  Texas, Florida, New York, and California, all large and popular states but very different places to live. The question is why are these states struggling so much with the homelessness? I would be willing to bet that these 4 states have some different policies on helping fight homelessness, but these different policies equal the similar results. At least, according to endhomelessness.org, TX, FL, and CA all had a drop in total homelessness since 2007, but admittedly CA drop was only 1%. The website seems to suggest this drop was mainly in homeless veterans, but that \"homeless individuals\" are experience far less progress.   While there has been progress across the country on homelessness, the country is still nowhere near a solution on dealing with the issue. While services exist that help shelter and support the homeless, they require a large amount of time, money, and effort from dedicated individuals to work closely with individual homeless people in order to help them rise. While every organization fighting homelessness needs more funding, providing more funding does not necessarily translate into a decrease in homelessness. This is due to the obstacles many homeless face in restarting their lives. Some are pulled back down by personal vices, such as drugs and alcohol, others are restrained by trauma and mental illness. Some homeless are unaware of the services out there to assist them, while others utilize every service they can only to struggle finding an employer willing to hire them. There are also many non-government groups that help fight homelessness such as streets team, the non-profit I cited earlier, and churches. These organizations do a great job and I encourage people to support them, but their efforts are not enough to ultimately combat the homeless epidemic.   I think everyone wants to fight and end homelessness. I think everyone wants those struggling to be treated with compassion. I think there are a lot of ideas currently argued that will \"solve\" the issue, but I do not think there is any clear answer on how to handle homelessness. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"fiqzs3u","c_root_id_B":"fiqtsub","created_at_utc_A":1582654539,"created_at_utc_B":1582651585,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"We do. Give them homes  While there isn\u2019t extensive research, what evidence exists shows giving people actual homes obviously solves homelessness, but also significantly reduces other effects of homelessness - health improves, mental health improves, imprisonment decreases, so does substance abuse.  Problem is no one has ever won votes by promising they\u2019ll build cheap houses around people\u2019s houses, this applies more when it is houses for homeless.","human_ref_B":"That vast majority of homeless people are mentally ill, lacking in opportunity, or simply temporarily down. There are absolutely programs that can improve all of those issues. While ending homelessness entirely may be unrealistic, it is absolutely realistic to provide care for the severely mentally ill, training and education for those lacking in opportunity, and a social safety net for those down on their luck.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2954.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"f9bx9z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: No one has any real idea how to end homelessness in America I live in California, a state frequently criticized for its amount of homeless residents, and rightfully so since 20% of the nation's homeless resides in California (according to the non-profit streetsteam.org).   That is clearly a significant number, and it seems easy to point the finger at all of the policies created by Californian politicians that are not working. However, that is all it seems people ever do; no one provides a clear plan on how to truly fight homelessness. They may suggests providing more services for the homeless, while others say we need to provide more shelters to help them restart their lives. Some say we have enough of those services, the budget is bloated and we need to actually be stricter on who receives aid, in order to incentivize homeless individuals back in to working. No matter what opinion or idea I hear it all seems to be just a small alteration to what currently exist, rather than an actual solution. This is because no one actually has a solution.   California may house 20% of the homeless population, but homelessness is a nationwide epidemic. According to endhomelessness.org, as of 2018, the top 5 states with the most homeless were California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Washington. Before migrating to California, I lived in Connecticut and Florida. While in Connecticut I would frequently visit NYC which is has the highest concentration of homeless in the entire country, again according to endhomlessness.org. In Florida I lived on the panhandle in a town called Navarre which is adjacent to Pensacola. In this area I encountered less homeless people than NYC and CA but their presence was not minimal.  Texas, Florida, New York, and California, all large and popular states but very different places to live. The question is why are these states struggling so much with the homelessness? I would be willing to bet that these 4 states have some different policies on helping fight homelessness, but these different policies equal the similar results. At least, according to endhomelessness.org, TX, FL, and CA all had a drop in total homelessness since 2007, but admittedly CA drop was only 1%. The website seems to suggest this drop was mainly in homeless veterans, but that \"homeless individuals\" are experience far less progress.   While there has been progress across the country on homelessness, the country is still nowhere near a solution on dealing with the issue. While services exist that help shelter and support the homeless, they require a large amount of time, money, and effort from dedicated individuals to work closely with individual homeless people in order to help them rise. While every organization fighting homelessness needs more funding, providing more funding does not necessarily translate into a decrease in homelessness. This is due to the obstacles many homeless face in restarting their lives. Some are pulled back down by personal vices, such as drugs and alcohol, others are restrained by trauma and mental illness. Some homeless are unaware of the services out there to assist them, while others utilize every service they can only to struggle finding an employer willing to hire them. There are also many non-government groups that help fight homelessness such as streets team, the non-profit I cited earlier, and churches. These organizations do a great job and I encourage people to support them, but their efforts are not enough to ultimately combat the homeless epidemic.   I think everyone wants to fight and end homelessness. I think everyone wants those struggling to be treated with compassion. I think there are a lot of ideas currently argued that will \"solve\" the issue, but I do not think there is any clear answer on how to handle homelessness. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"fir9rsb","c_root_id_B":"firahjz","created_at_utc_A":1582660201,"created_at_utc_B":1582660606,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"We already had the solution for a significant percentage of the homeless. Many homeless suffer from mental illness or substance abuse issues. Treatment was provided at asylums and mental institutions.  Unfortunately, many of the treatment centers had horrible practices and patient abuses. Also, there were civil rights issues over keeping people against their will. Instead of making reforms to these institutions so that people that needed care and lacked the skills to function in society could get treatment, most were simply closed and the patients sent out in the streets.  Providing more homes and living spaces is only the top of the iceberg. The larger issue is the fact that many of the homeless lack the social skills and mental faculties to properly function in society and maintain said living quarters. Mental health has been a major issue in this country ever since we decided shutter it instead of reform and improve it.","human_ref_B":"Not true.  There is one solution, that is feasible and would work.  But stupid people prevent us from implementing it so it will never take off.   We need to setup economic refugee camps.  Find cheap areas of land and setup FEMA esque tents and provide running water and bathrooms. This will allow us to enforce existing no camping on the sidewalk laws.  We could get rid of Skid row and all the other people living on the streets would have a place to go and we don't have to worry about an outbreak of plague from illegal encampments.   There will be resistance because many homeless people don't like rules but we'll have to work through those challenges.    This is the only idea that makes sense and is plausible.  And at some point of critical mass it will have to be enacted.  Noone is going to be able to build free houses for the 60k+ homeless people in LA alone.  There is not enough energy or will to do this.  So for the next few decades we will do nothing to address the entire problm while billions are spent on affordable housing initiatives that help .0001% of the homeless people and you'll still see a guy living in blue tarp under the 101.    Note: we don't want them to die, but I dont see any other solution.  This is the only way.  I'm not suggesting interning camps and holding people against their will.  It will be expensive but this is the cheapest option that is able to help 10s of thousands of people.  Not just a navigation center that provides 50 beds.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":405.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"f9bx9z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: No one has any real idea how to end homelessness in America I live in California, a state frequently criticized for its amount of homeless residents, and rightfully so since 20% of the nation's homeless resides in California (according to the non-profit streetsteam.org).   That is clearly a significant number, and it seems easy to point the finger at all of the policies created by Californian politicians that are not working. However, that is all it seems people ever do; no one provides a clear plan on how to truly fight homelessness. They may suggests providing more services for the homeless, while others say we need to provide more shelters to help them restart their lives. Some say we have enough of those services, the budget is bloated and we need to actually be stricter on who receives aid, in order to incentivize homeless individuals back in to working. No matter what opinion or idea I hear it all seems to be just a small alteration to what currently exist, rather than an actual solution. This is because no one actually has a solution.   California may house 20% of the homeless population, but homelessness is a nationwide epidemic. According to endhomelessness.org, as of 2018, the top 5 states with the most homeless were California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Washington. Before migrating to California, I lived in Connecticut and Florida. While in Connecticut I would frequently visit NYC which is has the highest concentration of homeless in the entire country, again according to endhomlessness.org. In Florida I lived on the panhandle in a town called Navarre which is adjacent to Pensacola. In this area I encountered less homeless people than NYC and CA but their presence was not minimal.  Texas, Florida, New York, and California, all large and popular states but very different places to live. The question is why are these states struggling so much with the homelessness? I would be willing to bet that these 4 states have some different policies on helping fight homelessness, but these different policies equal the similar results. At least, according to endhomelessness.org, TX, FL, and CA all had a drop in total homelessness since 2007, but admittedly CA drop was only 1%. The website seems to suggest this drop was mainly in homeless veterans, but that \"homeless individuals\" are experience far less progress.   While there has been progress across the country on homelessness, the country is still nowhere near a solution on dealing with the issue. While services exist that help shelter and support the homeless, they require a large amount of time, money, and effort from dedicated individuals to work closely with individual homeless people in order to help them rise. While every organization fighting homelessness needs more funding, providing more funding does not necessarily translate into a decrease in homelessness. This is due to the obstacles many homeless face in restarting their lives. Some are pulled back down by personal vices, such as drugs and alcohol, others are restrained by trauma and mental illness. Some homeless are unaware of the services out there to assist them, while others utilize every service they can only to struggle finding an employer willing to hire them. There are also many non-government groups that help fight homelessness such as streets team, the non-profit I cited earlier, and churches. These organizations do a great job and I encourage people to support them, but their efforts are not enough to ultimately combat the homeless epidemic.   I think everyone wants to fight and end homelessness. I think everyone wants those struggling to be treated with compassion. I think there are a lot of ideas currently argued that will \"solve\" the issue, but I do not think there is any clear answer on how to handle homelessness. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"fir9rsb","c_root_id_B":"fiqtsub","created_at_utc_A":1582660201,"created_at_utc_B":1582651585,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"We already had the solution for a significant percentage of the homeless. Many homeless suffer from mental illness or substance abuse issues. Treatment was provided at asylums and mental institutions.  Unfortunately, many of the treatment centers had horrible practices and patient abuses. Also, there were civil rights issues over keeping people against their will. Instead of making reforms to these institutions so that people that needed care and lacked the skills to function in society could get treatment, most were simply closed and the patients sent out in the streets.  Providing more homes and living spaces is only the top of the iceberg. The larger issue is the fact that many of the homeless lack the social skills and mental faculties to properly function in society and maintain said living quarters. Mental health has been a major issue in this country ever since we decided shutter it instead of reform and improve it.","human_ref_B":"That vast majority of homeless people are mentally ill, lacking in opportunity, or simply temporarily down. There are absolutely programs that can improve all of those issues. While ending homelessness entirely may be unrealistic, it is absolutely realistic to provide care for the severely mentally ill, training and education for those lacking in opportunity, and a social safety net for those down on their luck.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8616.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"f9bx9z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: No one has any real idea how to end homelessness in America I live in California, a state frequently criticized for its amount of homeless residents, and rightfully so since 20% of the nation's homeless resides in California (according to the non-profit streetsteam.org).   That is clearly a significant number, and it seems easy to point the finger at all of the policies created by Californian politicians that are not working. However, that is all it seems people ever do; no one provides a clear plan on how to truly fight homelessness. They may suggests providing more services for the homeless, while others say we need to provide more shelters to help them restart their lives. Some say we have enough of those services, the budget is bloated and we need to actually be stricter on who receives aid, in order to incentivize homeless individuals back in to working. No matter what opinion or idea I hear it all seems to be just a small alteration to what currently exist, rather than an actual solution. This is because no one actually has a solution.   California may house 20% of the homeless population, but homelessness is a nationwide epidemic. According to endhomelessness.org, as of 2018, the top 5 states with the most homeless were California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Washington. Before migrating to California, I lived in Connecticut and Florida. While in Connecticut I would frequently visit NYC which is has the highest concentration of homeless in the entire country, again according to endhomlessness.org. In Florida I lived on the panhandle in a town called Navarre which is adjacent to Pensacola. In this area I encountered less homeless people than NYC and CA but their presence was not minimal.  Texas, Florida, New York, and California, all large and popular states but very different places to live. The question is why are these states struggling so much with the homelessness? I would be willing to bet that these 4 states have some different policies on helping fight homelessness, but these different policies equal the similar results. At least, according to endhomelessness.org, TX, FL, and CA all had a drop in total homelessness since 2007, but admittedly CA drop was only 1%. The website seems to suggest this drop was mainly in homeless veterans, but that \"homeless individuals\" are experience far less progress.   While there has been progress across the country on homelessness, the country is still nowhere near a solution on dealing with the issue. While services exist that help shelter and support the homeless, they require a large amount of time, money, and effort from dedicated individuals to work closely with individual homeless people in order to help them rise. While every organization fighting homelessness needs more funding, providing more funding does not necessarily translate into a decrease in homelessness. This is due to the obstacles many homeless face in restarting their lives. Some are pulled back down by personal vices, such as drugs and alcohol, others are restrained by trauma and mental illness. Some homeless are unaware of the services out there to assist them, while others utilize every service they can only to struggle finding an employer willing to hire them. There are also many non-government groups that help fight homelessness such as streets team, the non-profit I cited earlier, and churches. These organizations do a great job and I encourage people to support them, but their efforts are not enough to ultimately combat the homeless epidemic.   I think everyone wants to fight and end homelessness. I think everyone wants those struggling to be treated with compassion. I think there are a lot of ideas currently argued that will \"solve\" the issue, but I do not think there is any clear answer on how to handle homelessness. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"fir9rsb","c_root_id_B":"fir0p3v","created_at_utc_A":1582660201,"created_at_utc_B":1582655038,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"We already had the solution for a significant percentage of the homeless. Many homeless suffer from mental illness or substance abuse issues. Treatment was provided at asylums and mental institutions.  Unfortunately, many of the treatment centers had horrible practices and patient abuses. Also, there were civil rights issues over keeping people against their will. Instead of making reforms to these institutions so that people that needed care and lacked the skills to function in society could get treatment, most were simply closed and the patients sent out in the streets.  Providing more homes and living spaces is only the top of the iceberg. The larger issue is the fact that many of the homeless lack the social skills and mental faculties to properly function in society and maintain said living quarters. Mental health has been a major issue in this country ever since we decided shutter it instead of reform and improve it.","human_ref_B":"We could put a pretty severe dent in homelessness by offering one of the 17 million vacant homes to those who are capable while they get back on their feet.   Of course, a pretty large number of homeless are either severely mentally ill or drug addicts. To combat that, we'd have to enact policies that compel those people to stay in clinics, potentially against their will, while at the same time improving care in those clinics immensely. This would also put a pretty big dent in homelessness.   Both of these policies would cost a lot of money and political will, which is why they won't happen.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5163.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"f9bx9z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: No one has any real idea how to end homelessness in America I live in California, a state frequently criticized for its amount of homeless residents, and rightfully so since 20% of the nation's homeless resides in California (according to the non-profit streetsteam.org).   That is clearly a significant number, and it seems easy to point the finger at all of the policies created by Californian politicians that are not working. However, that is all it seems people ever do; no one provides a clear plan on how to truly fight homelessness. They may suggests providing more services for the homeless, while others say we need to provide more shelters to help them restart their lives. Some say we have enough of those services, the budget is bloated and we need to actually be stricter on who receives aid, in order to incentivize homeless individuals back in to working. No matter what opinion or idea I hear it all seems to be just a small alteration to what currently exist, rather than an actual solution. This is because no one actually has a solution.   California may house 20% of the homeless population, but homelessness is a nationwide epidemic. According to endhomelessness.org, as of 2018, the top 5 states with the most homeless were California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Washington. Before migrating to California, I lived in Connecticut and Florida. While in Connecticut I would frequently visit NYC which is has the highest concentration of homeless in the entire country, again according to endhomlessness.org. In Florida I lived on the panhandle in a town called Navarre which is adjacent to Pensacola. In this area I encountered less homeless people than NYC and CA but their presence was not minimal.  Texas, Florida, New York, and California, all large and popular states but very different places to live. The question is why are these states struggling so much with the homelessness? I would be willing to bet that these 4 states have some different policies on helping fight homelessness, but these different policies equal the similar results. At least, according to endhomelessness.org, TX, FL, and CA all had a drop in total homelessness since 2007, but admittedly CA drop was only 1%. The website seems to suggest this drop was mainly in homeless veterans, but that \"homeless individuals\" are experience far less progress.   While there has been progress across the country on homelessness, the country is still nowhere near a solution on dealing with the issue. While services exist that help shelter and support the homeless, they require a large amount of time, money, and effort from dedicated individuals to work closely with individual homeless people in order to help them rise. While every organization fighting homelessness needs more funding, providing more funding does not necessarily translate into a decrease in homelessness. This is due to the obstacles many homeless face in restarting their lives. Some are pulled back down by personal vices, such as drugs and alcohol, others are restrained by trauma and mental illness. Some homeless are unaware of the services out there to assist them, while others utilize every service they can only to struggle finding an employer willing to hire them. There are also many non-government groups that help fight homelessness such as streets team, the non-profit I cited earlier, and churches. These organizations do a great job and I encourage people to support them, but their efforts are not enough to ultimately combat the homeless epidemic.   I think everyone wants to fight and end homelessness. I think everyone wants those struggling to be treated with compassion. I think there are a lot of ideas currently argued that will \"solve\" the issue, but I do not think there is any clear answer on how to handle homelessness. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"firahjz","c_root_id_B":"fiqtsub","created_at_utc_A":1582660606,"created_at_utc_B":1582651585,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Not true.  There is one solution, that is feasible and would work.  But stupid people prevent us from implementing it so it will never take off.   We need to setup economic refugee camps.  Find cheap areas of land and setup FEMA esque tents and provide running water and bathrooms. This will allow us to enforce existing no camping on the sidewalk laws.  We could get rid of Skid row and all the other people living on the streets would have a place to go and we don't have to worry about an outbreak of plague from illegal encampments.   There will be resistance because many homeless people don't like rules but we'll have to work through those challenges.    This is the only idea that makes sense and is plausible.  And at some point of critical mass it will have to be enacted.  Noone is going to be able to build free houses for the 60k+ homeless people in LA alone.  There is not enough energy or will to do this.  So for the next few decades we will do nothing to address the entire problm while billions are spent on affordable housing initiatives that help .0001% of the homeless people and you'll still see a guy living in blue tarp under the 101.    Note: we don't want them to die, but I dont see any other solution.  This is the only way.  I'm not suggesting interning camps and holding people against their will.  It will be expensive but this is the cheapest option that is able to help 10s of thousands of people.  Not just a navigation center that provides 50 beds.","human_ref_B":"That vast majority of homeless people are mentally ill, lacking in opportunity, or simply temporarily down. There are absolutely programs that can improve all of those issues. While ending homelessness entirely may be unrealistic, it is absolutely realistic to provide care for the severely mentally ill, training and education for those lacking in opportunity, and a social safety net for those down on their luck.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9021.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"f9bx9z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: No one has any real idea how to end homelessness in America I live in California, a state frequently criticized for its amount of homeless residents, and rightfully so since 20% of the nation's homeless resides in California (according to the non-profit streetsteam.org).   That is clearly a significant number, and it seems easy to point the finger at all of the policies created by Californian politicians that are not working. However, that is all it seems people ever do; no one provides a clear plan on how to truly fight homelessness. They may suggests providing more services for the homeless, while others say we need to provide more shelters to help them restart their lives. Some say we have enough of those services, the budget is bloated and we need to actually be stricter on who receives aid, in order to incentivize homeless individuals back in to working. No matter what opinion or idea I hear it all seems to be just a small alteration to what currently exist, rather than an actual solution. This is because no one actually has a solution.   California may house 20% of the homeless population, but homelessness is a nationwide epidemic. According to endhomelessness.org, as of 2018, the top 5 states with the most homeless were California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Washington. Before migrating to California, I lived in Connecticut and Florida. While in Connecticut I would frequently visit NYC which is has the highest concentration of homeless in the entire country, again according to endhomlessness.org. In Florida I lived on the panhandle in a town called Navarre which is adjacent to Pensacola. In this area I encountered less homeless people than NYC and CA but their presence was not minimal.  Texas, Florida, New York, and California, all large and popular states but very different places to live. The question is why are these states struggling so much with the homelessness? I would be willing to bet that these 4 states have some different policies on helping fight homelessness, but these different policies equal the similar results. At least, according to endhomelessness.org, TX, FL, and CA all had a drop in total homelessness since 2007, but admittedly CA drop was only 1%. The website seems to suggest this drop was mainly in homeless veterans, but that \"homeless individuals\" are experience far less progress.   While there has been progress across the country on homelessness, the country is still nowhere near a solution on dealing with the issue. While services exist that help shelter and support the homeless, they require a large amount of time, money, and effort from dedicated individuals to work closely with individual homeless people in order to help them rise. While every organization fighting homelessness needs more funding, providing more funding does not necessarily translate into a decrease in homelessness. This is due to the obstacles many homeless face in restarting their lives. Some are pulled back down by personal vices, such as drugs and alcohol, others are restrained by trauma and mental illness. Some homeless are unaware of the services out there to assist them, while others utilize every service they can only to struggle finding an employer willing to hire them. There are also many non-government groups that help fight homelessness such as streets team, the non-profit I cited earlier, and churches. These organizations do a great job and I encourage people to support them, but their efforts are not enough to ultimately combat the homeless epidemic.   I think everyone wants to fight and end homelessness. I think everyone wants those struggling to be treated with compassion. I think there are a lot of ideas currently argued that will \"solve\" the issue, but I do not think there is any clear answer on how to handle homelessness. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"firahjz","c_root_id_B":"fir0p3v","created_at_utc_A":1582660606,"created_at_utc_B":1582655038,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Not true.  There is one solution, that is feasible and would work.  But stupid people prevent us from implementing it so it will never take off.   We need to setup economic refugee camps.  Find cheap areas of land and setup FEMA esque tents and provide running water and bathrooms. This will allow us to enforce existing no camping on the sidewalk laws.  We could get rid of Skid row and all the other people living on the streets would have a place to go and we don't have to worry about an outbreak of plague from illegal encampments.   There will be resistance because many homeless people don't like rules but we'll have to work through those challenges.    This is the only idea that makes sense and is plausible.  And at some point of critical mass it will have to be enacted.  Noone is going to be able to build free houses for the 60k+ homeless people in LA alone.  There is not enough energy or will to do this.  So for the next few decades we will do nothing to address the entire problm while billions are spent on affordable housing initiatives that help .0001% of the homeless people and you'll still see a guy living in blue tarp under the 101.    Note: we don't want them to die, but I dont see any other solution.  This is the only way.  I'm not suggesting interning camps and holding people against their will.  It will be expensive but this is the cheapest option that is able to help 10s of thousands of people.  Not just a navigation center that provides 50 beds.","human_ref_B":"We could put a pretty severe dent in homelessness by offering one of the 17 million vacant homes to those who are capable while they get back on their feet.   Of course, a pretty large number of homeless are either severely mentally ill or drug addicts. To combat that, we'd have to enact policies that compel those people to stay in clinics, potentially against their will, while at the same time improving care in those clinics immensely. This would also put a pretty big dent in homelessness.   Both of these policies would cost a lot of money and political will, which is why they won't happen.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5568.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"f9bx9z","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: No one has any real idea how to end homelessness in America I live in California, a state frequently criticized for its amount of homeless residents, and rightfully so since 20% of the nation's homeless resides in California (according to the non-profit streetsteam.org).   That is clearly a significant number, and it seems easy to point the finger at all of the policies created by Californian politicians that are not working. However, that is all it seems people ever do; no one provides a clear plan on how to truly fight homelessness. They may suggests providing more services for the homeless, while others say we need to provide more shelters to help them restart their lives. Some say we have enough of those services, the budget is bloated and we need to actually be stricter on who receives aid, in order to incentivize homeless individuals back in to working. No matter what opinion or idea I hear it all seems to be just a small alteration to what currently exist, rather than an actual solution. This is because no one actually has a solution.   California may house 20% of the homeless population, but homelessness is a nationwide epidemic. According to endhomelessness.org, as of 2018, the top 5 states with the most homeless were California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Washington. Before migrating to California, I lived in Connecticut and Florida. While in Connecticut I would frequently visit NYC which is has the highest concentration of homeless in the entire country, again according to endhomlessness.org. In Florida I lived on the panhandle in a town called Navarre which is adjacent to Pensacola. In this area I encountered less homeless people than NYC and CA but their presence was not minimal.  Texas, Florida, New York, and California, all large and popular states but very different places to live. The question is why are these states struggling so much with the homelessness? I would be willing to bet that these 4 states have some different policies on helping fight homelessness, but these different policies equal the similar results. At least, according to endhomelessness.org, TX, FL, and CA all had a drop in total homelessness since 2007, but admittedly CA drop was only 1%. The website seems to suggest this drop was mainly in homeless veterans, but that \"homeless individuals\" are experience far less progress.   While there has been progress across the country on homelessness, the country is still nowhere near a solution on dealing with the issue. While services exist that help shelter and support the homeless, they require a large amount of time, money, and effort from dedicated individuals to work closely with individual homeless people in order to help them rise. While every organization fighting homelessness needs more funding, providing more funding does not necessarily translate into a decrease in homelessness. This is due to the obstacles many homeless face in restarting their lives. Some are pulled back down by personal vices, such as drugs and alcohol, others are restrained by trauma and mental illness. Some homeless are unaware of the services out there to assist them, while others utilize every service they can only to struggle finding an employer willing to hire them. There are also many non-government groups that help fight homelessness such as streets team, the non-profit I cited earlier, and churches. These organizations do a great job and I encourage people to support them, but their efforts are not enough to ultimately combat the homeless epidemic.   I think everyone wants to fight and end homelessness. I think everyone wants those struggling to be treated with compassion. I think there are a lot of ideas currently argued that will \"solve\" the issue, but I do not think there is any clear answer on how to handle homelessness. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"fir0p3v","c_root_id_B":"firdo3v","created_at_utc_A":1582655038,"created_at_utc_B":1582662404,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"We could put a pretty severe dent in homelessness by offering one of the 17 million vacant homes to those who are capable while they get back on their feet.   Of course, a pretty large number of homeless are either severely mentally ill or drug addicts. To combat that, we'd have to enact policies that compel those people to stay in clinics, potentially against their will, while at the same time improving care in those clinics immensely. This would also put a pretty big dent in homelessness.   Both of these policies would cost a lot of money and political will, which is why they won't happen.","human_ref_B":"The amount of money you would have to spend to end homelessness would be just disgusting. Ending homelessness is easy if you want to throw money in the toilet instead of giving it to people that would love to get back some or the tax dollars the invest via improvements to their state. Everyone wants to help the homeless or get them off the street. The majority of them have mental disorders anyway and it's not their fault necessarily. The cost is incredible though.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7366.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"nqvub1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: in the U.S. access to free clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare should be basic human rights In the United States, according to the \u201cunanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d.   Therefore, it would seem that, what falls underneath the right to life would be that which sustains life. That which sustains life would be (at the seemingly basic level) clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare.  To be clear, it would seem that these are things the government would ensure (at the very least) all Americans would have. Especially since this is from the declaration that the United States is separate and independent from all other nations.  But I\u2019m open to other thoughts.","c_root_id_A":"h0d0sk2","c_root_id_B":"h0czc77","created_at_utc_A":1622667969,"created_at_utc_B":1622667342,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Human rights are inalienable; you can't opt out of them. You can't legally allow yourself to be sold into slavery, for example.  However, there are circumstances in which some people should have the right to opt out of some of the services you list. The Amish, for example, should continue to be allowed to opt out of life-sustaining healthcare technologies due to a set of beliefs which cause no harm to others.  Simply declaring things to be human rights doesn't make them so, even if justice might demand that people have the access and the opportunity to avail themselves of these services.","human_ref_B":"I wish we could agree on a different term for this. There are positive rights and there are negative rights. A lot of folks, especially conservatives, have a really big problem with positive rights, i.e. rights *to* things (as opposed to rights \"from\" things).   If we could call positive rights \"services\" and say \"all Americans are entitled to to basic government services of clean water, food, air\" that would come across much better. It's also harder to push back on since we're not conflating things they hold sacred (negative rights) with things they don't want (positive rights).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":627.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"nqvub1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: in the U.S. access to free clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare should be basic human rights In the United States, according to the \u201cunanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d.   Therefore, it would seem that, what falls underneath the right to life would be that which sustains life. That which sustains life would be (at the seemingly basic level) clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare.  To be clear, it would seem that these are things the government would ensure (at the very least) all Americans would have. Especially since this is from the declaration that the United States is separate and independent from all other nations.  But I\u2019m open to other thoughts.","c_root_id_A":"h0d1yhd","c_root_id_B":"h0czc77","created_at_utc_A":1622668474,"created_at_utc_B":1622667342,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s a source of some fascination to me that there is such a strong concern with what the founding fathers of the USA meant or didn\u2019t mean by some statement or other. The US Declaration of Independence and constitution were stunning achievements that have done remarkably well to stand up over time, with some amendments.   But, if you\u2019re looking at a 250 year old paper to confirm whether people should have access to clean water something has gone wrong.  Of course clean water, food, clean air and healthcare should be available to all people. Why? Because it is the correct thing to do to improve the wellbeing of the population, and that\u2019s the goal of any government. Or should be.   Whether some dudes a couple of centuries back agree or disagree is entirely redundant and I cannot fathom the American fascination with picking apart their intentions rather than arguing the merits of a thing NOW and TODAY.","human_ref_B":"I wish we could agree on a different term for this. There are positive rights and there are negative rights. A lot of folks, especially conservatives, have a really big problem with positive rights, i.e. rights *to* things (as opposed to rights \"from\" things).   If we could call positive rights \"services\" and say \"all Americans are entitled to to basic government services of clean water, food, air\" that would come across much better. It's also harder to push back on since we're not conflating things they hold sacred (negative rights) with things they don't want (positive rights).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1132.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"nqvub1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: in the U.S. access to free clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare should be basic human rights In the United States, according to the \u201cunanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d.   Therefore, it would seem that, what falls underneath the right to life would be that which sustains life. That which sustains life would be (at the seemingly basic level) clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare.  To be clear, it would seem that these are things the government would ensure (at the very least) all Americans would have. Especially since this is from the declaration that the United States is separate and independent from all other nations.  But I\u2019m open to other thoughts.","c_root_id_A":"h0d12ys","c_root_id_B":"h0d1yhd","created_at_utc_A":1622668093,"created_at_utc_B":1622668474,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"So you will be funding all that yourself then?  No one argues against the merits of welfare.  The left vs right dichotomy is more accurately the financially uninformed vs the slightly-less uninformed.  Before worrying about if you SHOULD do something instead determine if you CAN do that thing.  Can the US afford all those things?  Nope, our debt is spiralling out of control as is.  The current status quo cannot and will not last forever.  Everyone knows this, but we dont agree at all on what to do about it.","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s a source of some fascination to me that there is such a strong concern with what the founding fathers of the USA meant or didn\u2019t mean by some statement or other. The US Declaration of Independence and constitution were stunning achievements that have done remarkably well to stand up over time, with some amendments.   But, if you\u2019re looking at a 250 year old paper to confirm whether people should have access to clean water something has gone wrong.  Of course clean water, food, clean air and healthcare should be available to all people. Why? Because it is the correct thing to do to improve the wellbeing of the population, and that\u2019s the goal of any government. Or should be.   Whether some dudes a couple of centuries back agree or disagree is entirely redundant and I cannot fathom the American fascination with picking apart their intentions rather than arguing the merits of a thing NOW and TODAY.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":381.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"nqvub1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: in the U.S. access to free clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare should be basic human rights In the United States, according to the \u201cunanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d.   Therefore, it would seem that, what falls underneath the right to life would be that which sustains life. That which sustains life would be (at the seemingly basic level) clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare.  To be clear, it would seem that these are things the government would ensure (at the very least) all Americans would have. Especially since this is from the declaration that the United States is separate and independent from all other nations.  But I\u2019m open to other thoughts.","c_root_id_A":"h0czc77","c_root_id_B":"h0d3nuk","created_at_utc_A":1622667342,"created_at_utc_B":1622669218,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I wish we could agree on a different term for this. There are positive rights and there are negative rights. A lot of folks, especially conservatives, have a really big problem with positive rights, i.e. rights *to* things (as opposed to rights \"from\" things).   If we could call positive rights \"services\" and say \"all Americans are entitled to to basic government services of clean water, food, air\" that would come across much better. It's also harder to push back on since we're not conflating things they hold sacred (negative rights) with things they don't want (positive rights).","human_ref_B":"I think we should add housing and a car to that. Every American should be entitled to their own home and a car to get where theyre going. And a job too. Everyone should have a job. Those who cant find a job should have one provided to them by the government. We could eliminate homelessness and unemployment and that would save us billions. Its a no-brainer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1876.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"nqvub1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: in the U.S. access to free clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare should be basic human rights In the United States, according to the \u201cunanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d.   Therefore, it would seem that, what falls underneath the right to life would be that which sustains life. That which sustains life would be (at the seemingly basic level) clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare.  To be clear, it would seem that these are things the government would ensure (at the very least) all Americans would have. Especially since this is from the declaration that the United States is separate and independent from all other nations.  But I\u2019m open to other thoughts.","c_root_id_A":"h0d12ys","c_root_id_B":"h0d3nuk","created_at_utc_A":1622668093,"created_at_utc_B":1622669218,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"So you will be funding all that yourself then?  No one argues against the merits of welfare.  The left vs right dichotomy is more accurately the financially uninformed vs the slightly-less uninformed.  Before worrying about if you SHOULD do something instead determine if you CAN do that thing.  Can the US afford all those things?  Nope, our debt is spiralling out of control as is.  The current status quo cannot and will not last forever.  Everyone knows this, but we dont agree at all on what to do about it.","human_ref_B":"I think we should add housing and a car to that. Every American should be entitled to their own home and a car to get where theyre going. And a job too. Everyone should have a job. Those who cant find a job should have one provided to them by the government. We could eliminate homelessness and unemployment and that would save us billions. Its a no-brainer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1125.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"nqvub1","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: in the U.S. access to free clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare should be basic human rights In the United States, according to the \u201cunanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d.   Therefore, it would seem that, what falls underneath the right to life would be that which sustains life. That which sustains life would be (at the seemingly basic level) clean water, food, clean air, and healthcare.  To be clear, it would seem that these are things the government would ensure (at the very least) all Americans would have. Especially since this is from the declaration that the United States is separate and independent from all other nations.  But I\u2019m open to other thoughts.","c_root_id_A":"h0d12ys","c_root_id_B":"h0czc77","created_at_utc_A":1622668093,"created_at_utc_B":1622667342,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So you will be funding all that yourself then?  No one argues against the merits of welfare.  The left vs right dichotomy is more accurately the financially uninformed vs the slightly-less uninformed.  Before worrying about if you SHOULD do something instead determine if you CAN do that thing.  Can the US afford all those things?  Nope, our debt is spiralling out of control as is.  The current status quo cannot and will not last forever.  Everyone knows this, but we dont agree at all on what to do about it.","human_ref_B":"I wish we could agree on a different term for this. There are positive rights and there are negative rights. A lot of folks, especially conservatives, have a really big problem with positive rights, i.e. rights *to* things (as opposed to rights \"from\" things).   If we could call positive rights \"services\" and say \"all Americans are entitled to to basic government services of clean water, food, air\" that would come across much better. It's also harder to push back on since we're not conflating things they hold sacred (negative rights) with things they don't want (positive rights).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":751.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"dk0fz5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV : The United States need a third political party or some sort of alternative so that progress can be made. So in my personal opinion, to have only 2 parties, both of which being completely opposite In view, is somewhat detrimental to progress. From what I\u2019ve seen, if you go too far into 1 belief like for instance left or right leaning views, then it ultimately descends into fanaticism and dictatorship.  Now these may not be the best examples, but here are two of the biggest and most obvious ones : the nazis and Stalinism. Both are examples of leaning way too far into one belief to the point that it ultimately descends into a dictatorship. Now of course there were multiple factors that made both things horrible of course, but I feel that both being essentially as far right and left leaning as possible respectively is a contributor.  But I\u2019d rather digress and get to the main point. When you have two sides that are both entirely dedicated to one side of the argument then you get no progress as both sides will be completely unable to be convinced on the other sides arguments. It\u2019s all one big popularity contest at that point which is entirely dependent on which side is the most dominant in the legislation.   Now granted I\u2019ve no idea of how this would work, but I\u2019m ultimately I\u2019m arguing and ideal here. Now feel free to pick apart my likely not well thought out and\/or not properly communicated argument. I\u2019m just generally interested in how I\u2019m wrong here because I feel I am to some degree","c_root_id_A":"f49lokg","c_root_id_B":"f49tlvc","created_at_utc_A":1571472670,"created_at_utc_B":1571483524,"score_A":6,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"The prisoner's dilemma is what's causing the two parties to be so entrenched, and the first past the post system we have is what's causing a prisoner's dilemma.  We need a single transferable vote, or some other alternative that doesn't allow for such fear of \"wasted votes.\"","human_ref_B":"The problem is not a lack of political parties, there are plenty of those. The problem is that elections in the USA elect a single individual who then gets to set up a government. This inevitably leads to a two-party system, because people realize that a vote for a less popular third candidate might well leave the door open for someone who they don't agree with *at all*. So they will rather pick the least-objectionable candidate out of the biggest two so that the most-objectionable candidate doesn't get in. C.G.P. Grey has made a video about this.  To really allow a more balanced, moderate political climate, I believe it is crucial that no single individual should have the level of power that the American president has. The role of the president should be a largely ceremonial one, with the actual power in a (possibly coalition) government, elected on the basis of proportional representation of all voters.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10854.0,"score_ratio":7.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"dk0fz5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV : The United States need a third political party or some sort of alternative so that progress can be made. So in my personal opinion, to have only 2 parties, both of which being completely opposite In view, is somewhat detrimental to progress. From what I\u2019ve seen, if you go too far into 1 belief like for instance left or right leaning views, then it ultimately descends into fanaticism and dictatorship.  Now these may not be the best examples, but here are two of the biggest and most obvious ones : the nazis and Stalinism. Both are examples of leaning way too far into one belief to the point that it ultimately descends into a dictatorship. Now of course there were multiple factors that made both things horrible of course, but I feel that both being essentially as far right and left leaning as possible respectively is a contributor.  But I\u2019d rather digress and get to the main point. When you have two sides that are both entirely dedicated to one side of the argument then you get no progress as both sides will be completely unable to be convinced on the other sides arguments. It\u2019s all one big popularity contest at that point which is entirely dependent on which side is the most dominant in the legislation.   Now granted I\u2019ve no idea of how this would work, but I\u2019m ultimately I\u2019m arguing and ideal here. Now feel free to pick apart my likely not well thought out and\/or not properly communicated argument. I\u2019m just generally interested in how I\u2019m wrong here because I feel I am to some degree","c_root_id_A":"f4a6pmk","c_root_id_B":"f4a4uri","created_at_utc_A":1571489711,"created_at_utc_B":1571488974,"score_A":42,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Good news! We already have more than two political parties in the US! I even voted for a candidate from one of them in 2016! So you and everyone else can do the same in future elections, spread the word!  So you're happy now, right?  No?  Then... I guess your view is changed that we don't need a third political party? Having a third political party is the situation we're in right now and you're not happy, yea? We apparently need something else.  The root of the problem you're concerned about here is the first-past-the-post election system, which from a game theory perspective inevitably leads to only two major parties regardless of how many parties there actually are. There's nothing in law anywhere saying we have can only have two parties, and, in fact, we don't have two parties. It's the first past the post system that causes people to vote for \"the lesser of two evils\" and results in only two dominant parties and a bunch of others with no real chance at winning. And even if one of those other parties becomes dominant all it does is replace one of the two dominant parties (this has happened previously in the US, ex when the Whig party fell into meaninglessness).   So what you actually think we need is not a 3rd party (we have plenty of those), what you probably think we need is something like ranked choice voting, which does not lead to two dominant parties.","human_ref_B":"Look into a ranked choice voting system.  It allows people to rank their choices, and essentially vote for multiple people. If one person doesn't get enough of the vote. It goes to the 2nd candidate and so on.  So people don't feel like they ever throw a vote away because chances are your vote goes to someone on your list, and it forces moderate candidates because it's unlikely that extremists on any side would be able to pull off a massive majority.  So it's likely peoples 2nd or 3rd choices are the victors, and those winners had to appeal to both left and right wing in order to win a majority.  So theres no more feeling that half the country got robbed because of the electoral college.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":737.0,"score_ratio":2.8}
+{"post_id":"dk0fz5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV : The United States need a third political party or some sort of alternative so that progress can be made. So in my personal opinion, to have only 2 parties, both of which being completely opposite In view, is somewhat detrimental to progress. From what I\u2019ve seen, if you go too far into 1 belief like for instance left or right leaning views, then it ultimately descends into fanaticism and dictatorship.  Now these may not be the best examples, but here are two of the biggest and most obvious ones : the nazis and Stalinism. Both are examples of leaning way too far into one belief to the point that it ultimately descends into a dictatorship. Now of course there were multiple factors that made both things horrible of course, but I feel that both being essentially as far right and left leaning as possible respectively is a contributor.  But I\u2019d rather digress and get to the main point. When you have two sides that are both entirely dedicated to one side of the argument then you get no progress as both sides will be completely unable to be convinced on the other sides arguments. It\u2019s all one big popularity contest at that point which is entirely dependent on which side is the most dominant in the legislation.   Now granted I\u2019ve no idea of how this would work, but I\u2019m ultimately I\u2019m arguing and ideal here. Now feel free to pick apart my likely not well thought out and\/or not properly communicated argument. I\u2019m just generally interested in how I\u2019m wrong here because I feel I am to some degree","c_root_id_A":"f49lokg","c_root_id_B":"f4a6pmk","created_at_utc_A":1571472670,"created_at_utc_B":1571489711,"score_A":6,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"The prisoner's dilemma is what's causing the two parties to be so entrenched, and the first past the post system we have is what's causing a prisoner's dilemma.  We need a single transferable vote, or some other alternative that doesn't allow for such fear of \"wasted votes.\"","human_ref_B":"Good news! We already have more than two political parties in the US! I even voted for a candidate from one of them in 2016! So you and everyone else can do the same in future elections, spread the word!  So you're happy now, right?  No?  Then... I guess your view is changed that we don't need a third political party? Having a third political party is the situation we're in right now and you're not happy, yea? We apparently need something else.  The root of the problem you're concerned about here is the first-past-the-post election system, which from a game theory perspective inevitably leads to only two major parties regardless of how many parties there actually are. There's nothing in law anywhere saying we have can only have two parties, and, in fact, we don't have two parties. It's the first past the post system that causes people to vote for \"the lesser of two evils\" and results in only two dominant parties and a bunch of others with no real chance at winning. And even if one of those other parties becomes dominant all it does is replace one of the two dominant parties (this has happened previously in the US, ex when the Whig party fell into meaninglessness).   So what you actually think we need is not a 3rd party (we have plenty of those), what you probably think we need is something like ranked choice voting, which does not lead to two dominant parties.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17041.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
+{"post_id":"dk0fz5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV : The United States need a third political party or some sort of alternative so that progress can be made. So in my personal opinion, to have only 2 parties, both of which being completely opposite In view, is somewhat detrimental to progress. From what I\u2019ve seen, if you go too far into 1 belief like for instance left or right leaning views, then it ultimately descends into fanaticism and dictatorship.  Now these may not be the best examples, but here are two of the biggest and most obvious ones : the nazis and Stalinism. Both are examples of leaning way too far into one belief to the point that it ultimately descends into a dictatorship. Now of course there were multiple factors that made both things horrible of course, but I feel that both being essentially as far right and left leaning as possible respectively is a contributor.  But I\u2019d rather digress and get to the main point. When you have two sides that are both entirely dedicated to one side of the argument then you get no progress as both sides will be completely unable to be convinced on the other sides arguments. It\u2019s all one big popularity contest at that point which is entirely dependent on which side is the most dominant in the legislation.   Now granted I\u2019ve no idea of how this would work, but I\u2019m ultimately I\u2019m arguing and ideal here. Now feel free to pick apart my likely not well thought out and\/or not properly communicated argument. I\u2019m just generally interested in how I\u2019m wrong here because I feel I am to some degree","c_root_id_A":"f4a6pmk","c_root_id_B":"f4a04qu","created_at_utc_A":1571489711,"created_at_utc_B":1571486929,"score_A":42,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Good news! We already have more than two political parties in the US! I even voted for a candidate from one of them in 2016! So you and everyone else can do the same in future elections, spread the word!  So you're happy now, right?  No?  Then... I guess your view is changed that we don't need a third political party? Having a third political party is the situation we're in right now and you're not happy, yea? We apparently need something else.  The root of the problem you're concerned about here is the first-past-the-post election system, which from a game theory perspective inevitably leads to only two major parties regardless of how many parties there actually are. There's nothing in law anywhere saying we have can only have two parties, and, in fact, we don't have two parties. It's the first past the post system that causes people to vote for \"the lesser of two evils\" and results in only two dominant parties and a bunch of others with no real chance at winning. And even if one of those other parties becomes dominant all it does is replace one of the two dominant parties (this has happened previously in the US, ex when the Whig party fell into meaninglessness).   So what you actually think we need is not a 3rd party (we have plenty of those), what you probably think we need is something like ranked choice voting, which does not lead to two dominant parties.","human_ref_B":"Winner-takes-all voting system is at fault for this.  cp grey explains it well","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2782.0,"score_ratio":14.0}
+{"post_id":"dk0fz5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV : The United States need a third political party or some sort of alternative so that progress can be made. So in my personal opinion, to have only 2 parties, both of which being completely opposite In view, is somewhat detrimental to progress. From what I\u2019ve seen, if you go too far into 1 belief like for instance left or right leaning views, then it ultimately descends into fanaticism and dictatorship.  Now these may not be the best examples, but here are two of the biggest and most obvious ones : the nazis and Stalinism. Both are examples of leaning way too far into one belief to the point that it ultimately descends into a dictatorship. Now of course there were multiple factors that made both things horrible of course, but I feel that both being essentially as far right and left leaning as possible respectively is a contributor.  But I\u2019d rather digress and get to the main point. When you have two sides that are both entirely dedicated to one side of the argument then you get no progress as both sides will be completely unable to be convinced on the other sides arguments. It\u2019s all one big popularity contest at that point which is entirely dependent on which side is the most dominant in the legislation.   Now granted I\u2019ve no idea of how this would work, but I\u2019m ultimately I\u2019m arguing and ideal here. Now feel free to pick apart my likely not well thought out and\/or not properly communicated argument. I\u2019m just generally interested in how I\u2019m wrong here because I feel I am to some degree","c_root_id_A":"f49lokg","c_root_id_B":"f4a4uri","created_at_utc_A":1571472670,"created_at_utc_B":1571488974,"score_A":6,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"The prisoner's dilemma is what's causing the two parties to be so entrenched, and the first past the post system we have is what's causing a prisoner's dilemma.  We need a single transferable vote, or some other alternative that doesn't allow for such fear of \"wasted votes.\"","human_ref_B":"Look into a ranked choice voting system.  It allows people to rank their choices, and essentially vote for multiple people. If one person doesn't get enough of the vote. It goes to the 2nd candidate and so on.  So people don't feel like they ever throw a vote away because chances are your vote goes to someone on your list, and it forces moderate candidates because it's unlikely that extremists on any side would be able to pull off a massive majority.  So it's likely peoples 2nd or 3rd choices are the victors, and those winners had to appeal to both left and right wing in order to win a majority.  So theres no more feeling that half the country got robbed because of the electoral college.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16304.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"dk0fz5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV : The United States need a third political party or some sort of alternative so that progress can be made. So in my personal opinion, to have only 2 parties, both of which being completely opposite In view, is somewhat detrimental to progress. From what I\u2019ve seen, if you go too far into 1 belief like for instance left or right leaning views, then it ultimately descends into fanaticism and dictatorship.  Now these may not be the best examples, but here are two of the biggest and most obvious ones : the nazis and Stalinism. Both are examples of leaning way too far into one belief to the point that it ultimately descends into a dictatorship. Now of course there were multiple factors that made both things horrible of course, but I feel that both being essentially as far right and left leaning as possible respectively is a contributor.  But I\u2019d rather digress and get to the main point. When you have two sides that are both entirely dedicated to one side of the argument then you get no progress as both sides will be completely unable to be convinced on the other sides arguments. It\u2019s all one big popularity contest at that point which is entirely dependent on which side is the most dominant in the legislation.   Now granted I\u2019ve no idea of how this would work, but I\u2019m ultimately I\u2019m arguing and ideal here. Now feel free to pick apart my likely not well thought out and\/or not properly communicated argument. I\u2019m just generally interested in how I\u2019m wrong here because I feel I am to some degree","c_root_id_A":"f4a4uri","c_root_id_B":"f4a04qu","created_at_utc_A":1571488974,"created_at_utc_B":1571486929,"score_A":15,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Look into a ranked choice voting system.  It allows people to rank their choices, and essentially vote for multiple people. If one person doesn't get enough of the vote. It goes to the 2nd candidate and so on.  So people don't feel like they ever throw a vote away because chances are your vote goes to someone on your list, and it forces moderate candidates because it's unlikely that extremists on any side would be able to pull off a massive majority.  So it's likely peoples 2nd or 3rd choices are the victors, and those winners had to appeal to both left and right wing in order to win a majority.  So theres no more feeling that half the country got robbed because of the electoral college.","human_ref_B":"Winner-takes-all voting system is at fault for this.  cp grey explains it well","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2045.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"dk0fz5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV : The United States need a third political party or some sort of alternative so that progress can be made. So in my personal opinion, to have only 2 parties, both of which being completely opposite In view, is somewhat detrimental to progress. From what I\u2019ve seen, if you go too far into 1 belief like for instance left or right leaning views, then it ultimately descends into fanaticism and dictatorship.  Now these may not be the best examples, but here are two of the biggest and most obvious ones : the nazis and Stalinism. Both are examples of leaning way too far into one belief to the point that it ultimately descends into a dictatorship. Now of course there were multiple factors that made both things horrible of course, but I feel that both being essentially as far right and left leaning as possible respectively is a contributor.  But I\u2019d rather digress and get to the main point. When you have two sides that are both entirely dedicated to one side of the argument then you get no progress as both sides will be completely unable to be convinced on the other sides arguments. It\u2019s all one big popularity contest at that point which is entirely dependent on which side is the most dominant in the legislation.   Now granted I\u2019ve no idea of how this would work, but I\u2019m ultimately I\u2019m arguing and ideal here. Now feel free to pick apart my likely not well thought out and\/or not properly communicated argument. I\u2019m just generally interested in how I\u2019m wrong here because I feel I am to some degree","c_root_id_A":"f49lokg","c_root_id_B":"f4ar3p0","created_at_utc_A":1571472670,"created_at_utc_B":1571499828,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The prisoner's dilemma is what's causing the two parties to be so entrenched, and the first past the post system we have is what's causing a prisoner's dilemma.  We need a single transferable vote, or some other alternative that doesn't allow for such fear of \"wasted votes.\"","human_ref_B":"PoliSci 101 Argument:  Suppose that there are two parties, the Dingles and the Dangles. You align somewhat closely to the Dangles and _really_ disagree with the Dingles' policies.  Along comes the Dongles. You _really_ like their policies. They're like the Dangles, but a little more progressive. There are others like you, and so on the day of the election, half of the Dangles supporters switch over to the Dongles.  In previous elections, the vote was almost 50\/50 Dingles to Dangles, but now that the Dangles' support has been split with the Dongles, the Dingles win by a landslide.  In fact, if you're a bit fancier, you can prove that any first-past-the-post voting system will inevitably lead to parties. So it's not that we need another party, we need a new voting system, like ranked-choice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27158.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"dk0fz5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV : The United States need a third political party or some sort of alternative so that progress can be made. So in my personal opinion, to have only 2 parties, both of which being completely opposite In view, is somewhat detrimental to progress. From what I\u2019ve seen, if you go too far into 1 belief like for instance left or right leaning views, then it ultimately descends into fanaticism and dictatorship.  Now these may not be the best examples, but here are two of the biggest and most obvious ones : the nazis and Stalinism. Both are examples of leaning way too far into one belief to the point that it ultimately descends into a dictatorship. Now of course there were multiple factors that made both things horrible of course, but I feel that both being essentially as far right and left leaning as possible respectively is a contributor.  But I\u2019d rather digress and get to the main point. When you have two sides that are both entirely dedicated to one side of the argument then you get no progress as both sides will be completely unable to be convinced on the other sides arguments. It\u2019s all one big popularity contest at that point which is entirely dependent on which side is the most dominant in the legislation.   Now granted I\u2019ve no idea of how this would work, but I\u2019m ultimately I\u2019m arguing and ideal here. Now feel free to pick apart my likely not well thought out and\/or not properly communicated argument. I\u2019m just generally interested in how I\u2019m wrong here because I feel I am to some degree","c_root_id_A":"f4aa2w2","c_root_id_B":"f4ar3p0","created_at_utc_A":1571491213,"created_at_utc_B":1571499828,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"We don't have any sort of legislated two party system.    It's caused by our first-past-the-post voting system, which causes people to vote only for candidates they think have a chance, instead of the best one. There are voting methods to solve this, including ranked choice voting, and approval voting. (Condorcet seems to be the best, but I guess avoided because it's harder to understand?)  And because the super rich own the government, so they pay to keep their power: https:\/\/youtu.be\/5tu32CCA_Ig","human_ref_B":"PoliSci 101 Argument:  Suppose that there are two parties, the Dingles and the Dangles. You align somewhat closely to the Dangles and _really_ disagree with the Dingles' policies.  Along comes the Dongles. You _really_ like their policies. They're like the Dangles, but a little more progressive. There are others like you, and so on the day of the election, half of the Dangles supporters switch over to the Dongles.  In previous elections, the vote was almost 50\/50 Dingles to Dangles, but now that the Dangles' support has been split with the Dongles, the Dingles win by a landslide.  In fact, if you're a bit fancier, you can prove that any first-past-the-post voting system will inevitably lead to parties. So it's not that we need another party, we need a new voting system, like ranked-choice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8615.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"dk0fz5","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV : The United States need a third political party or some sort of alternative so that progress can be made. So in my personal opinion, to have only 2 parties, both of which being completely opposite In view, is somewhat detrimental to progress. From what I\u2019ve seen, if you go too far into 1 belief like for instance left or right leaning views, then it ultimately descends into fanaticism and dictatorship.  Now these may not be the best examples, but here are two of the biggest and most obvious ones : the nazis and Stalinism. Both are examples of leaning way too far into one belief to the point that it ultimately descends into a dictatorship. Now of course there were multiple factors that made both things horrible of course, but I feel that both being essentially as far right and left leaning as possible respectively is a contributor.  But I\u2019d rather digress and get to the main point. When you have two sides that are both entirely dedicated to one side of the argument then you get no progress as both sides will be completely unable to be convinced on the other sides arguments. It\u2019s all one big popularity contest at that point which is entirely dependent on which side is the most dominant in the legislation.   Now granted I\u2019ve no idea of how this would work, but I\u2019m ultimately I\u2019m arguing and ideal here. Now feel free to pick apart my likely not well thought out and\/or not properly communicated argument. I\u2019m just generally interested in how I\u2019m wrong here because I feel I am to some degree","c_root_id_A":"f4a04qu","c_root_id_B":"f4ar3p0","created_at_utc_A":1571486929,"created_at_utc_B":1571499828,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Winner-takes-all voting system is at fault for this.  cp grey explains it well","human_ref_B":"PoliSci 101 Argument:  Suppose that there are two parties, the Dingles and the Dangles. You align somewhat closely to the Dangles and _really_ disagree with the Dingles' policies.  Along comes the Dongles. You _really_ like their policies. They're like the Dangles, but a little more progressive. There are others like you, and so on the day of the election, half of the Dangles supporters switch over to the Dongles.  In previous elections, the vote was almost 50\/50 Dingles to Dangles, but now that the Dangles' support has been split with the Dongles, the Dingles win by a landslide.  In fact, if you're a bit fancier, you can prove that any first-past-the-post voting system will inevitably lead to parties. So it's not that we need another party, we need a new voting system, like ranked-choice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12899.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"1i9xk2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"I believe that taking photographs of strangers in a public place is not immoral. CMV In the comments section of this post, I noticed a heavy bias towards the idea that taking pictures of people in a public place is somehow an immoral thing to do. I Don't understand this. As far as I see it, when entering a public place, an individual can be seen by those around them. It is also true that in many public places, you are likely being recorded on CCTV in various points anyway, so objecting to others taking images seems irrational.   I should also add that I obviously don't advocate photographing people for criminal means such as blackmail or libel, but in most other cases I see nothing immoral about taking photographs.   I am looking forward to learning about the counter arguments, so thank you in advance","c_root_id_A":"cb2eq33","c_root_id_B":"cb2f94s","created_at_utc_A":1373811777,"created_at_utc_B":1373814022,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Where do you draw the line between things like blackmail and libel and something like creepshots, especially considering how these things can follow a person around?  There have been cases of people being fired over pictures on the Internet. If someone took a revealing picture of you, and it ended up getting linked to your name, that could happen.   Maybe a bit off point, but its pretty common for women who post pictures like that of themselves to be called \"attention w****s\", but if a guy sends a similar picture of a stranger without permission, he's praised for the \"great find\".  Consider what that says about how people think of women who are out in public.","human_ref_B":"While under normal circumstances, taking pictures of strangers is just fine, people can *make* it creepy enough to be immoral, through say, repetition, or method (example: women wear skirts. There are socially unacceptable angles to take pictures of a woman wearing a skirt), or circumstance (like one of those stores that instructs their people to follow around black people, but a photographer).  Such photos are a lot like simply looking at someone, in terms of politeness. You wouldn't look up a woman's skirt. You wouldn't follow around someone at a store creepily. You wouldn't stalk them.  And you wouldn't stand over their shoulder in an airplane and go, \"What'cha reading?\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2245.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"3mrtak","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sander's, and the left in general, financial stance is not sustainable and will only hurt the US economy in the long run by forcing business and money over seas. I am 50\/50 socially liberal\/socially conservative but 100% fiscally conservative. I believe higher taxes on business and people is not beneficial. My view is it will just cause those who are smart enough to move their businesses overseas while the rest who stay here to suffer from profit loss, have to fire employees to meet financial obligations, raise prices on goods and services, etc. Im not an expert and Id like to believe that the government has a financially responsible (I know its nice to help people, but at what cost?) plan, but Im skeptical.  _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cvhku3s","c_root_id_B":"cvicewr","created_at_utc_A":1443489163,"created_at_utc_B":1443550615,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"To start with, identifying as socially liberal but economically conservative is simply saying that you believe in as much social help as the system can handle. I think both parties would lay the same claim so we have to look at the difference in policies and where they feel the center of balance exists.  I think on the voter side of things we've allowed ourselves to be sold into a grossly oversimplified way of viewing economics. For conservatives they see a growing national debt and feel that all social programs are adding to that overall number. But this view isn't taking into account our ability to juggle the budget and, more importantly, that social programs can have positive economic influence. Government isn't always a negative factor in economics-there are gains to be had from social legislation where the free market might not have ventured. An individual company won't benefit from education reform in the short term but a more educated population, especially an areas of high poverty and crime, can be a huge asset to local business in the future. Healthcare reform might cost a business on their taxes but in the long run provide them with a healthier staff.  I'm not saying all social programs are responsible. I'm generally conservative leaning and I do hear a lot of promises from the left that I feel can be very difficult to sustain but I don't see these issues as destructive to the system on the whole. I don't see Bernie Sanders sinking the economy or making a change in the basic foundation of our system I just think he's made promises that are politically not likely to come to fruition.   Understand that, for both parties, lobbying is a huge part of our legislative process. Much of the doom and gloom banter you hear is deeply exaggerated because an influential corporate lobbyist sees it as financially expedient to them on an individual level and that's translated to a global level from the politicians championing it.   This isn't Gospel and I'm sure there are many on here with a much deeper education on the subject than mine will disagree but I think the core of your argument relies on an exaggerated view of liberalism portrayed by conservatives counting on voter turnout. The same happens on the opposite side as well.","human_ref_B":"What isn't sustainable is the increasing capture of the US economy by the wealthy and powerful.  In 1985, the bottom 90% of the public owned 36% of US wealth.  Now they own only 23%. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=VePpQBCbKBw  The public is being systematically robbed, the political system has been captured by the super wealthy, and executives with golden parachutes avoid any sort of punishment for robbery or outright wrongdoing.  That is what's not sustainable.  Furthermore, if you're a fiscal conservative, you should look past the superficial rhetoric of the right wing.  George W. Bush was supposed to be a fiscal conservative, who cut taxes on everyone.    But he was an utter disaster, wasting trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars, pharmaceutical giveaways, and terrible governance in general.  If you are a real fiscal conservative, you should be concerned with the totality of governance.    I.e., you can't just claim that you are because you want to give tax cuts all the time, you have to look at the entirety of how people manage government.  And by that standard, Democrats are the real fiscal conservatives, because they want government to work so they're responsible with it when they're driving the car.  Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives and get elected on tax cuts for everybody, but they don't mind completely wrecking the car when they're in office because they want to destroy the government.    What you theoretically save in taxes by voting right wing, you pay for heavily in terms of extremely irresponsible and destructive governance over extended periods of time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":61452.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"3mrtak","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sander's, and the left in general, financial stance is not sustainable and will only hurt the US economy in the long run by forcing business and money over seas. I am 50\/50 socially liberal\/socially conservative but 100% fiscally conservative. I believe higher taxes on business and people is not beneficial. My view is it will just cause those who are smart enough to move their businesses overseas while the rest who stay here to suffer from profit loss, have to fire employees to meet financial obligations, raise prices on goods and services, etc. Im not an expert and Id like to believe that the government has a financially responsible (I know its nice to help people, but at what cost?) plan, but Im skeptical.  _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cvicewr","c_root_id_B":"cvhskvk","created_at_utc_A":1443550615,"created_at_utc_B":1443503077,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What isn't sustainable is the increasing capture of the US economy by the wealthy and powerful.  In 1985, the bottom 90% of the public owned 36% of US wealth.  Now they own only 23%. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=VePpQBCbKBw  The public is being systematically robbed, the political system has been captured by the super wealthy, and executives with golden parachutes avoid any sort of punishment for robbery or outright wrongdoing.  That is what's not sustainable.  Furthermore, if you're a fiscal conservative, you should look past the superficial rhetoric of the right wing.  George W. Bush was supposed to be a fiscal conservative, who cut taxes on everyone.    But he was an utter disaster, wasting trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars, pharmaceutical giveaways, and terrible governance in general.  If you are a real fiscal conservative, you should be concerned with the totality of governance.    I.e., you can't just claim that you are because you want to give tax cuts all the time, you have to look at the entirety of how people manage government.  And by that standard, Democrats are the real fiscal conservatives, because they want government to work so they're responsible with it when they're driving the car.  Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives and get elected on tax cuts for everybody, but they don't mind completely wrecking the car when they're in office because they want to destroy the government.    What you theoretically save in taxes by voting right wing, you pay for heavily in terms of extremely irresponsible and destructive governance over extended periods of time.","human_ref_B":"Others are arguing corporations and taxes effectively. It is easier to agree that higher taxes seem to be not beneficial.   I would like you to consider what Federal taxes go for. We spend a lot of money on national defense, on wars past and present. All of this can be endlessly debated. The final answer is: All money spent in defense is wasted, except we must never lose a war.  The cost to not helping people can be calculated. Most Food Stamp money goes to feeding children and the elderly. We can let the old starve. But if children are not fed our future workers, and soldiers, grow up malnourished. We cost ourselves very dearly. The WIC program is justified because outcomes with well fed mothers and small children are cheaper than the alternative.  The Federal budget can be stepped through line by line with good arguments for how the money is spent.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":47538.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"3mrtak","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sander's, and the left in general, financial stance is not sustainable and will only hurt the US economy in the long run by forcing business and money over seas. I am 50\/50 socially liberal\/socially conservative but 100% fiscally conservative. I believe higher taxes on business and people is not beneficial. My view is it will just cause those who are smart enough to move their businesses overseas while the rest who stay here to suffer from profit loss, have to fire employees to meet financial obligations, raise prices on goods and services, etc. Im not an expert and Id like to believe that the government has a financially responsible (I know its nice to help people, but at what cost?) plan, but Im skeptical.  _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cviq9iz","c_root_id_B":"cvhskvk","created_at_utc_A":1443571638,"created_at_utc_B":1443503077,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Here's a few things to consider:  **Policy #1:** Bernie Sanders wants universal healthcare\/single payer. Republicans keep raising the argument that this would be fiscally disastrous even though that's incorrect. National Health Expenditure is at 2.9 Trillion Dollars a Year. His Plan is to spend 15 trillion over ten years, or 1.5 Trillion a year (a 40% reduction in the NHE). Now while it is true that the government currently spends 1.03 Trillion on Healthcare directly. This does not account for the cost of employer insurance writeoffs (which this article pegs at 196 Billion a year in lost revenues) and it doesn't account for individual writeoffs, or medical bankruptcy.  It may be the case that the government indirectly and directly already pays more than 1.5 Trillion a year on healthcare. If coverage can be expanded to everyone while keeping the costs the same (which is possible because of rampant profiteering in the healthcare and pharmaceuticals industry) and freeing employers from the bureaucratic limitations and costs of providing private health plans, it should absolutely be done.   Not only is universal healthcare doable, it would actually be cheaper than our current system and would spur economic activity at most levels (unburdening of businesses).   **Policy #2**: Infrastructure Spending is crucial to the economic success of this country. Where would this country be without the Eisenhower Interstate System or the federal push for phone lines. It baffles me that people would balk at paying for Infrastructure in this country seeing how crucial it is to it functioning. Every time engineers keep being asked about infrastructure you would think they're talking doomsday from how concerned they are. Every article I've read that has asked engineers about how they feel about Bernie's 1T infrastructure plan, they say that it's a good first step, but that a trillion is nowhere near enough. This isn't even about unnecessary stuff, this is simply about keeping the tens of thousands of bridges in this country from collapsing. Infrastructure spending always pays itself back multiple times over in economic activity.  **Policy #3**: Social Security should definitely be strengthened and benefits increased. Instead of arguing the social benefit, I will just say that almost everyone that receives Social Security Benefits (and everyone receiving SSI, SSDI, Widow, and survivor benefits) is likely near poverty if not in it. These kinds of people are not in a position to save, so the money that is given to them almost immediately returns to the economy. These are exactly the kinds of people you want to give more money to as their consumption needs spur economic growth (the real job makers).  We are quickly getting to a point as a society where technology is developing so quickly that entire fields are either becoming automated or already are. It's coming so fast that you can't even hope to train for another career before that career also becomes endangered. Bernie hasn't said this but Universal Basic Income IS coming, because the alternatives are disastrous. Leverage production and profit to pay for these benefit liabilities just like the Chinese are starting to do now.   There's also things we currently pay for that we shouldn't. For example, during the last sequester, the pentagon offered to cut nearly 150 billion in spending a year (this was simply fat that they felt was easy to get rid of, so not even important initiatives or programs) and republicans threw a fit and refused to allow it because they didn't want their constituents getting mad at the possibility someone like Boeing or Raytheon would cut jobs in their districts. 150 billion could cut 1\/3rd of our current deficit but no, because a few dozen republicans were afraid of losing their seats.  Just closing corporate tax loopholes forever would do wonders for the budget and while both sides have an interest in protecting their lobbyist friend's tax loopholes, it is usually leftists who harp on fixing them the most. It's easy to say our corporate tax rate is too high (which it kind of is at 35%) and then forget there isn't one company that pays even half that rate in practice. The effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 12.6%. Which means, even a country like Switzerland (notorious tax haven) collects more corporate tax at 18% than the U.S. Germany, China, Japan, India, the economic juggernauts of the world...all of them collect 15% or higher effective corporate tax.  My point is this, the right's fiscal policies aren't even based on reality, so how can the left's policies (which are) be any worse than the right?  Also all the policies that Bernie espouses have been enacted in other countries successfully (with the exception of Sweden and the Financial Transactions Tax), so there are real world examples of how these policies look when they are the law and the result is that they are all in the top 10 happiest countries on earth.","human_ref_B":"Others are arguing corporations and taxes effectively. It is easier to agree that higher taxes seem to be not beneficial.   I would like you to consider what Federal taxes go for. We spend a lot of money on national defense, on wars past and present. All of this can be endlessly debated. The final answer is: All money spent in defense is wasted, except we must never lose a war.  The cost to not helping people can be calculated. Most Food Stamp money goes to feeding children and the elderly. We can let the old starve. But if children are not fed our future workers, and soldiers, grow up malnourished. We cost ourselves very dearly. The WIC program is justified because outcomes with well fed mothers and small children are cheaper than the alternative.  The Federal budget can be stepped through line by line with good arguments for how the money is spent.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":68561.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"2m5lkb","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Change my view thatIf left-anarchist modes of production were truly superior, then more people would already be using them. My understanding is that the basic idea behind anarchism is that productive property (capital) should not be owned by individuals, but should be held in common by the people who work on it through a co-op or similar arrangement.  Anarchists seem to believe that the workers will be inspired to create systems that are more efficient, more humane, and all-around superior to those of capitalist businesses.  My question is, if you want to work at a collectively owned business, then what's stopping you from starting one?  There's no law against it.  True, capital doesn't come out of thin air, but raising money for such a venture is a far more realistic goal than overturning the entire socio-political system.    There are already employee-owned businesses, and while they have their advantages, they are not nearly as revolutionary as many anarchists seem to believe their co-ops would be.  If they were more efficient, innovative, etc, they would out-compete traditional businesses in the market.  In fact, you don't even need to be part of a commune to \"own the means of production\".  You just need to invest in the company you work at, and then you'll get your share of the profits of capital.  Most people are reluctant to do this, because they understand at some level that capitalists do not make money by doing nothing, they make money by taking risks.  Many people do not want to share in the risks of their workplace, with good reason.  In the current system, we have the choice between two systems.  Anarchism would force everyone into the system that the majority of people do not choose.  I do not see how this can be considered a good thing.  Please CMV. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cm15eyk","c_root_id_B":"cm1737s","created_at_utc_A":1415857634,"created_at_utc_B":1415863168,"score_A":5,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":">In the current system, we have the choice between two systems. Anarchism would force everyone into the system that the majority of people do not choose. I do not see how this can be considered a good thing.  Do we really have the right to choose?  There is a problem in the logic that a person can simply 'choose' the pervading ideological\/economic structure that they live in.  I don't really see how people aren't presently forced to live in a capitalist system the same way you're saying anarchism would force a system on everybody. I think revolutionary change means a lot more than just opening a co-op cheese shop in San Francisco where you all live together on an urban farm and you're selling your cheese to the local pizza collective.   What philosophical variant of anarchism, exactly, were you thinking of?","human_ref_B":"Two economists were walking down the street.  They see what looks like a $20 bill lying on the ground near the sidewalk.  The first economist says \"The efficient markets hypothesis is true.  If there had really been a twenty on the ground, someone would already have picked it up.\"  The second economist goes and picks up the piece of paper.  It is indeed a $20 bill.  The second economist says \"The efficient markets hypothesis is indeed true.  And someone has picked it up.\"  You can't say that just because something hasn't been found yet, it isn't there.  In the current system we have may choices, each among many options.  Somewhere among all those possibilities, there may be one that would be better (if institutions were supportive of it) than capitalism.  Pure anarchism wouldn't force anyone into anything.  That's what the word means.  Anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism comes in various flavors.  If there's a version that says all you have to do is start a co-op and everything will be utopian glory, so therefore we should force everyone into co-ops (and I wouldn't be surprised if there is), then yes, it's nonsense that's trivially refuted.    But utopian theories tend to be less readily falsifiable.  From what I've heard of them, anarchists don't seem to be clear on what would replace coercive authority.  But something would.  Maybe it's pure woo, but they have some sort of verbiage there.  Maybe the difference is that we wouldn't have to tax ourselves to support the coercive apparatus of the state: then you would have to compare tax-exempt adequately-capitalized co-ops (where the workers are all exempt from income tax too, not just the firm itself) with tax-paying privately-owned businesses, in order to refute it.  Maybe they believe that businesses are very dependent on reputation, and that being a co-op brings an air of leftist radicalism.  Maybe they believe there's something ineffable about co-ops that benefits other co-ops, so that one co-op by itself is about as viable as one telephone in a world with no others to call.  All that being said, owning shares in the company you work for is usually a lousy idea, as employees of Enron discovered when they lost their jobs and their savings at the same time.    None of the reasons why anarcho-communism will be different after the Revolution are really all that convincing.  But if you want to refute them, you have to refute them, not just note that anarcho-communism doesn't work before the Revolution.  (And by the way, it's somewhat hair-splitting, but owners of capital do get money for doing nothing.  I have a few shares of stock that my father left me, and I've never done anything with it but I still get my dividends.  Yes, the value of the stock is at risk.  And yes, risk-bearing is a real factor of production.  But you don't have to *do* anything in order to own at-risk assets.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5534.0,"score_ratio":7.4}
+{"post_id":"1g0yt9","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"In light of recent events in the US Federal Government, I now believe the only way things can change is state secession. CMV? So our government believes it is just, and is attempting to defend spying on its own citizens. They're actively trying to disarm us. There's inevitably another thousand other things like this happening that we DON'T yet know about. Our president has outright admit that the only thing more important than Constitutionally protected freedoms is the premise of 'safety'.  So who's going to do anything about it? Americans are too comfortable to get up and care. Everywhere else in the world, this kind of behavior by the government would have mass riots in the streets, huge anti-government demonstrations, petrol bombs, tear gas, riot police, gunfire, and serious attempts to destabilize the ruling regime. These protests and riots go on for *weeks*.  What are we going to do about it? We've been driven into left\/right factions so thoroughly that we've crippled ourselves. No matter the issue, we've been trained from an early age to think a certain way and almost dehumanize the other. If left-leaning people start rioting, the right will be able to easily dismiss them as just jobless whining hippies. If the right-leaning people start rioting, they will be dismissed as crazy gun-nut rednecks. Any attempt to do anything as a unified whole will be sabotaged by the lines our own politicians have probably deliberately drawn in the sand. There isn't a single issue I can think of where 'left' and 'right' agree, there *always* has to be an opposing view.  Additionally, our country is so big and decentralized that we don't even know WHERE TO BEGIN. How do people in Nevada, Washington state, Montana show their discontent? How does voting even change anything anymore? The two parties have infected the system down to the core. Who are you going to vote for?  I honestly think the only way for anything to change at this point is for a state to actually secede. It would provide a serious precedent for other states to follow, and serve as a massive unified front. Rather than just a few people standing in a park, it's the entire state of Texas, or Arizona, or Utah that's part of it. And it would demand prompt action on behalf of the federal government, rather than just ignoring the protests as they usually do until the local police abuse the protestors enough that they eventually go home. The bottom line is that protesting doesn't work anymore. It hasn't worked since the 50s.  This would also change the rules of the game - rather than the government being able to do what it wants and it being up to the citizens to respond to it, now the government would have to respond instead. And depending on what they do, it could bring the entire system down.  I don't think secession could actually happen for reasons I stated before - left\/right politicians are a gangrenous rot on our political system and would sabotage this effort on every level, and ignorant left\/right people would sabotage each other... but if it were possible, I believe it should be done now, and sooner rather than later.  Am I wrong?","c_root_id_A":"caft6ua","c_root_id_B":"cafsyha","created_at_utc_A":1370860901,"created_at_utc_B":1370858930,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'll say what I said in a similar post about armed revolution. I find something like this extremely unlikely because a mass movement can only happen if people are both angry and don't feel like they have an outlet to express that. Democratic countries have the ballot box as a safety valve to make people feel like their opinion matters, and thus revolt is prevented. You'll never organise a large number of people to do anything any more, if their actions' effectiveness depends on the acts of others - people need to feel the direct benefit of their own action or they won't bother.  Furthermore, I believe that any system which concentrates power into the hands of any 'executors' of the will of the people is bound to become an organ by which one person seeks to expropriate another - whether it's large special interests, those executors, or even you, as a voter, who seeks to control the lives of others through the ballot.   I believe the best solution is agorism. Building alternative institutions to the state and participating in grey markets makes the state both redundant in the long run, and, more importantly, less relevant to *your* life and less able to invade it in the short run. Thus, you liberate yourself somewhat, but you're also liberating others a little bit every time you work around the state. It also has the benefit of a reduced chance of violence or civil war, although I don't think state secession would lead to civil war these days.  The \/r\/agorism subreddit has more.","human_ref_B":"I think you should wait a while and see how this all plays out. Politicians are much weaker than Reddit tends to realize. Especially on issues like this, where there aren't a lot of corporate players.  It's probably fortunate that this came out during a democratic administration. While I haven't actually checked, I have to assume that talk radio and the Fox machine are tripping over themselves to hype the hell out of this, even if it's something they would usually support. And while their power is waning, they're still powerful enough to be the gatekeepers of \"getting anything done.\" If they're already on our side, we win almost automatically.  Not to suggest that the Dem base isn't strong by itself, they're just as scary in a primary, there's just usually a lot less friendly fire on that side. The most important figures in all this will be the senate dems, who are, sure enough, also the ones who have to most to be afraid of. Narrowish majority, with the natural cycle against them, and way more of their seats in play, due to this being the class of 08. They do NOT want the right to be energized about anything, and they seriously can not afford to do primaries.   Basically, as long as people (such as yourself) keep freaking the hell out about this, we've almost got nothing to worry about. Nobody's ready to deal with something like this. All the strongest voter blocs are against them. Actually wasn't there a link this weekend about Feinstein already backpedaling and talking about inquiries?  I suppose the main point of the post was about secession, but that's mostly silly. It would benefit no one, nobody at the top, nobody at the bottom. Also, secession is usually mused about for ideological reasons. Texas is tired of putting up with Californias crap, or vice versa. This issue mostly transcends the whole left\/right thing, and the state governments are still mostly the same everywhere, so it would be kind of pointless. This would be just a plain rebellion, with state boundaries probably not preserved. But still silly. Boring normal politics are much more effective.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1971.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"r7txz2","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Two spirit should not be part of the LGBT+ community From my understanding, two spirit is only used by the Native American community and is a cultural title given by the community. It encompasses a lot of responsibility, such as working in roles opposite to your assigned gender at birth and being highly spiritual, and people not Native American cannot be two spirit.  I understand being two spirit means you are a third gender. But being gay, trans, nonbinary, etc. happens to people across all races and genders. But you can only be two spirit if you are Native American, which makes this more of a Native American and cultural matter than a gender matter. You can argue and say that the LGBTQ+ community have been giving a voice to Native Americans (which they need more of), but I think putting two spirit in the full acronym is disingenuous to both the LGBTQ+ community and Native Americans.   I think the LGBT community should support two spirits and Native Americans, since two spirits tend to form same sex relationships and two spirits existing gives more credibility to the transgender and nonbinary movement. But ultimately, I don't believe two spirits should be a part of the community because it is more of a cultural identity than a gender or sexuality.","c_root_id_A":"hn1m5ht","c_root_id_B":"hn1lucc","created_at_utc_A":1638518723,"created_at_utc_B":1638518476,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">community is more of a cultural identity than a gender or sexuality.  Well that is not really how communities works. It does not really have an exclusion clause that says because you are more this than that you can't be part of a community. The community is an umbrella. So even if it two spirits is more of a cultural thing, you cant deny it has some gender\/sexual identity in play. That is enough to fit under the umbrella of the lgbt+ community. It can be part of both communities as it is relevant to both. Like an African American women community can't be part of both the women and African American community just because it is more of a cultural thing than a gender thing?","human_ref_B":"I know a few indigenous people that are two spirit and leaders in their community. They are pretty vocal and active in including 2S with LGBT+ because they want to build solidarity across intersections among marginalized group.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":247.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"we5x1a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I think many people that claim they're non binary are faking it. The majority of people that claim non binary identity AND aggressively insist on they\/them pronouns are phony. Seems that many are privileged white people that are ashamed or embarrassed by their perceived oppressor status or perceived lack of \"exoticness\".  It's an incredibly easy way to join a minority group with little effort. An actual non binary person wouldn't care what strangers or acquaintances refer to them as. They know it's never an intentional way to disrespect anyone. It's just the natural flow of language. Just like saying a foreign name or place while still having your native accent in pronunciation.","c_root_id_A":"iimf351","c_root_id_B":"ilry7v3","created_at_utc_A":1659432486,"created_at_utc_B":1661456785,"score_A":6,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"If I accidentally misgendered you by calling you \"Miss Eddyshorts\" when you\u2019re a dude,  or \"my boy Eddyshorts\", if you\u2019re a woman, would you correct me?  I'm a stranger, and it's not intentional. It just may not be accurate.  But for argument\u2019s sake, let's say it *doesn't* bother you, and you're cool with accidental misgendering \u2014 does that make you NB now?   Pronouns aren't the defining factor. I bet you insist on pronouns in some way too.   **FTR, you referred to NB folks without using any gendered pronouns throughout this entire post.** So using they\/them when you don't know someone isn't that hard, eh?","human_ref_B":"Nonbinary isnt even real. It was made up by people who arent gay and arent trans but wanted a way to feel special in the lgbt community. Now they insist everyone else accept their stupid beliefs because they're some minority group thats oppressed. They make real trans people look ridiculous","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2024299.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"we5x1a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I think many people that claim they're non binary are faking it. The majority of people that claim non binary identity AND aggressively insist on they\/them pronouns are phony. Seems that many are privileged white people that are ashamed or embarrassed by their perceived oppressor status or perceived lack of \"exoticness\".  It's an incredibly easy way to join a minority group with little effort. An actual non binary person wouldn't care what strangers or acquaintances refer to them as. They know it's never an intentional way to disrespect anyone. It's just the natural flow of language. Just like saying a foreign name or place while still having your native accent in pronunciation.","c_root_id_A":"iime19f","c_root_id_B":"ilry7v3","created_at_utc_A":1659431611,"created_at_utc_B":1661456785,"score_A":3,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Do you have literally any evidence to support your claim? Possibly something analysing things like depression in comparison to binary trans people?","human_ref_B":"Nonbinary isnt even real. It was made up by people who arent gay and arent trans but wanted a way to feel special in the lgbt community. Now they insist everyone else accept their stupid beliefs because they're some minority group thats oppressed. They make real trans people look ridiculous","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2025174.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"we5x1a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I think many people that claim they're non binary are faking it. The majority of people that claim non binary identity AND aggressively insist on they\/them pronouns are phony. Seems that many are privileged white people that are ashamed or embarrassed by their perceived oppressor status or perceived lack of \"exoticness\".  It's an incredibly easy way to join a minority group with little effort. An actual non binary person wouldn't care what strangers or acquaintances refer to them as. They know it's never an intentional way to disrespect anyone. It's just the natural flow of language. Just like saying a foreign name or place while still having your native accent in pronunciation.","c_root_id_A":"ilry7v3","c_root_id_B":"iimfehj","created_at_utc_A":1661456785,"created_at_utc_B":1659432746,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Nonbinary isnt even real. It was made up by people who arent gay and arent trans but wanted a way to feel special in the lgbt community. Now they insist everyone else accept their stupid beliefs because they're some minority group thats oppressed. They make real trans people look ridiculous","human_ref_B":"I think that to some degree everyone is \"non-binary\" as in \"showing some traits that usually are more prevalent with the opposite sex\". It's just the ratios that differ on a fluent scale. Same as with the Kinsey-scale.  However, propagating that this means people should completely dissociate from their biological sex and even consider an operation seems highly questionable to me.  I think it would be a much healthier mindset to just accept it as normal that your biological sex doesn't mean you have to behave in a certain way that is associated to it.  Accept that it's normal to be a girl who likes cars and other girls or be a guy who likes fashion and other guys. That this doesn't mean you are some sort of special entity that needs special treatment. And especially not that you need some sort of operation or be put on hormones.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2024039.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"we5x1a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I think many people that claim they're non binary are faking it. The majority of people that claim non binary identity AND aggressively insist on they\/them pronouns are phony. Seems that many are privileged white people that are ashamed or embarrassed by their perceived oppressor status or perceived lack of \"exoticness\".  It's an incredibly easy way to join a minority group with little effort. An actual non binary person wouldn't care what strangers or acquaintances refer to them as. They know it's never an intentional way to disrespect anyone. It's just the natural flow of language. Just like saying a foreign name or place while still having your native accent in pronunciation.","c_root_id_A":"iin5kkv","c_root_id_B":"ilry7v3","created_at_utc_A":1659448316,"created_at_utc_B":1661456785,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":">An actual non binary person wouldn't care what strangers or acquaintances refer to them as.  Really? Why wouldn't a non-binary person care about how you treat them?","human_ref_B":"Nonbinary isnt even real. It was made up by people who arent gay and arent trans but wanted a way to feel special in the lgbt community. Now they insist everyone else accept their stupid beliefs because they're some minority group thats oppressed. They make real trans people look ridiculous","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2008469.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"we5x1a","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I think many people that claim they're non binary are faking it. The majority of people that claim non binary identity AND aggressively insist on they\/them pronouns are phony. Seems that many are privileged white people that are ashamed or embarrassed by their perceived oppressor status or perceived lack of \"exoticness\".  It's an incredibly easy way to join a minority group with little effort. An actual non binary person wouldn't care what strangers or acquaintances refer to them as. They know it's never an intentional way to disrespect anyone. It's just the natural flow of language. Just like saying a foreign name or place while still having your native accent in pronunciation.","c_root_id_A":"iime19f","c_root_id_B":"iimf351","created_at_utc_A":1659431611,"created_at_utc_B":1659432486,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Do you have literally any evidence to support your claim? Possibly something analysing things like depression in comparison to binary trans people?","human_ref_B":"If I accidentally misgendered you by calling you \"Miss Eddyshorts\" when you\u2019re a dude,  or \"my boy Eddyshorts\", if you\u2019re a woman, would you correct me?  I'm a stranger, and it's not intentional. It just may not be accurate.  But for argument\u2019s sake, let's say it *doesn't* bother you, and you're cool with accidental misgendering \u2014 does that make you NB now?   Pronouns aren't the defining factor. I bet you insist on pronouns in some way too.   **FTR, you referred to NB folks without using any gendered pronouns throughout this entire post.** So using they\/them when you don't know someone isn't that hard, eh?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":875.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"iyadzo","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: It is a moral imperative of countries who abide by human rights to coerce other countries to respect human rights I have discussed this twice with two people IRL and both times I seem to be in the wrong so I am wanting to challenge my thinking.  The scenario is like this; China is currently interring the Uyghurs and effectively committing genocide by forcibly sterilising the population.  My view is that countries \u201cin the west\u201d should coerce China to stop this activity and if it led to the use of military force then so be it.  The counter-argument both parties I\u2019ve talked to with have said that it is not \u201cthe west\u2019s\u201d job to impose its views on other countries (effectively anti-imperialism) and that morality is subjective, something I disagree with strongly in the situation of right to freedom.  I also feel this way about North Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. \u201cThe west\u201d should intervene in any country where basic human rights are not respected.  Wherever there are people who are oppressed by a regime, it is morally reprehensible, to me, to not use every method available to assist them.   The argument to me that \u201cthey will figure it out for themselves\u201d is completely devoid of humanity. That is to say that the pain and suffering of people in these countries right now will pay off later when that country becomes \u201cenlightened\u201d.   How would I feel living in these societies with the knowledge that life does not have to be this way, that there are countries who are incredibly powerful, more so than mine, that could help but don\u2019t?  I can\u2019t wrap my head around why it is wrong to forcibly coerce countries to respect basic human rights.   Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"g6bjd7r","c_root_id_B":"g6bgere","created_at_utc_A":1600871129,"created_at_utc_B":1600869504,"score_A":22,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"So I spent some time serving in rural Afghanistan, and nothing has more profoundly proven to me that what you're arguing for is (in many cases) functionally impossible without doing something even worse to coerce a change.  Imagine a society where women are in a separate social class between livestock and people, and where the overwhelming majority of both sexes are more or less fine with that.  Every social and religious institution functionally supports that norm, and the people are so accustomed to poverty that they can't really be coerced by the threat of deprivation.  You can maybe give them incentives to change, but they feel no great need to honor such agreements beyond absolute necessity - when cash stops flowing or you stop supervising, they just go back to doing what they did before.  How do you change them?  You'd need to perpetrate a cultural genocide via a de facto police state that fundamentally rearranged their social order.  It would mean an insanely bloody conflict that probably wouldn't be won short of full-blown decimation of the (al least male) population.  And that's assuming you were willing to stick to something like existing LOAC.  You might try something else...  Terrorism.  You could kidnap the sons of powerful leaders and start sending chunks back to their families.  You could make a show of bombing and killing people for defying you in the slightest.  YOu could outright steal their daughters and give them to Western families to be raised with better values.  Of course, if you do that, it raises the question of whether you're actually better anymore.  We tend to look at what our militaries can do and be rightly impressed - as conventional forces, they're the best that have ever existed in human history.  But what you're describing...this \"intervention\" isn't a war.  It's something else entirely, and we aren't capable of doing it.","human_ref_B":"Have you considered that some populations actually demand (as in, would vote for) human rights abuses?  Much like the war on drugs, or any attempt by a government to subvert the *actual* will of the populace, a foreign government intervention would likely have more unintended consequences and backlash effects than it would have in actual benefits to human rights.  If the majority of a population actual wants to treat others badly, an outside intervention will not solve that problem -- **only an \"inside intervention\", i.e. a change of the will of the people, will solve that problem**.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1625.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
+{"post_id":"iyadzo","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: It is a moral imperative of countries who abide by human rights to coerce other countries to respect human rights I have discussed this twice with two people IRL and both times I seem to be in the wrong so I am wanting to challenge my thinking.  The scenario is like this; China is currently interring the Uyghurs and effectively committing genocide by forcibly sterilising the population.  My view is that countries \u201cin the west\u201d should coerce China to stop this activity and if it led to the use of military force then so be it.  The counter-argument both parties I\u2019ve talked to with have said that it is not \u201cthe west\u2019s\u201d job to impose its views on other countries (effectively anti-imperialism) and that morality is subjective, something I disagree with strongly in the situation of right to freedom.  I also feel this way about North Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. \u201cThe west\u201d should intervene in any country where basic human rights are not respected.  Wherever there are people who are oppressed by a regime, it is morally reprehensible, to me, to not use every method available to assist them.   The argument to me that \u201cthey will figure it out for themselves\u201d is completely devoid of humanity. That is to say that the pain and suffering of people in these countries right now will pay off later when that country becomes \u201cenlightened\u201d.   How would I feel living in these societies with the knowledge that life does not have to be this way, that there are countries who are incredibly powerful, more so than mine, that could help but don\u2019t?  I can\u2019t wrap my head around why it is wrong to forcibly coerce countries to respect basic human rights.   Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"g6bgdok","c_root_id_B":"g6bjd7r","created_at_utc_A":1600869488,"created_at_utc_B":1600871129,"score_A":6,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Caveat: I agree with you generally  If expansion of human rights comes through coercive force which itself is an affront to human rights then youve built a tautology of death which will only lead to revolts from the population you are attempting to change.   Imagine tomorrow we invaded Saudi Arabia, toppled the regime and made killing gay people illegal. Woooot massive human rights win to not have gay people thrown off rooves! But wait we just toppled their government if this goes the way of Iraq and we kill up to a million civilians we will breed terrorists who are even more anti-gay and will kill more civilians and gays as revenge for the foreign intervention.   Basically blood begets blood and forcing others to bend to your will may lead to a clap back when instead of bending their society instead breaks.","human_ref_B":"So I spent some time serving in rural Afghanistan, and nothing has more profoundly proven to me that what you're arguing for is (in many cases) functionally impossible without doing something even worse to coerce a change.  Imagine a society where women are in a separate social class between livestock and people, and where the overwhelming majority of both sexes are more or less fine with that.  Every social and religious institution functionally supports that norm, and the people are so accustomed to poverty that they can't really be coerced by the threat of deprivation.  You can maybe give them incentives to change, but they feel no great need to honor such agreements beyond absolute necessity - when cash stops flowing or you stop supervising, they just go back to doing what they did before.  How do you change them?  You'd need to perpetrate a cultural genocide via a de facto police state that fundamentally rearranged their social order.  It would mean an insanely bloody conflict that probably wouldn't be won short of full-blown decimation of the (al least male) population.  And that's assuming you were willing to stick to something like existing LOAC.  You might try something else...  Terrorism.  You could kidnap the sons of powerful leaders and start sending chunks back to their families.  You could make a show of bombing and killing people for defying you in the slightest.  YOu could outright steal their daughters and give them to Western families to be raised with better values.  Of course, if you do that, it raises the question of whether you're actually better anymore.  We tend to look at what our militaries can do and be rightly impressed - as conventional forces, they're the best that have ever existed in human history.  But what you're describing...this \"intervention\" isn't a war.  It's something else entirely, and we aren't capable of doing it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1641.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"iyadzo","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: It is a moral imperative of countries who abide by human rights to coerce other countries to respect human rights I have discussed this twice with two people IRL and both times I seem to be in the wrong so I am wanting to challenge my thinking.  The scenario is like this; China is currently interring the Uyghurs and effectively committing genocide by forcibly sterilising the population.  My view is that countries \u201cin the west\u201d should coerce China to stop this activity and if it led to the use of military force then so be it.  The counter-argument both parties I\u2019ve talked to with have said that it is not \u201cthe west\u2019s\u201d job to impose its views on other countries (effectively anti-imperialism) and that morality is subjective, something I disagree with strongly in the situation of right to freedom.  I also feel this way about North Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. \u201cThe west\u201d should intervene in any country where basic human rights are not respected.  Wherever there are people who are oppressed by a regime, it is morally reprehensible, to me, to not use every method available to assist them.   The argument to me that \u201cthey will figure it out for themselves\u201d is completely devoid of humanity. That is to say that the pain and suffering of people in these countries right now will pay off later when that country becomes \u201cenlightened\u201d.   How would I feel living in these societies with the knowledge that life does not have to be this way, that there are countries who are incredibly powerful, more so than mine, that could help but don\u2019t?  I can\u2019t wrap my head around why it is wrong to forcibly coerce countries to respect basic human rights.   Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"g6bjd7r","c_root_id_B":"g6binty","created_at_utc_A":1600871129,"created_at_utc_B":1600870751,"score_A":22,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So I spent some time serving in rural Afghanistan, and nothing has more profoundly proven to me that what you're arguing for is (in many cases) functionally impossible without doing something even worse to coerce a change.  Imagine a society where women are in a separate social class between livestock and people, and where the overwhelming majority of both sexes are more or less fine with that.  Every social and religious institution functionally supports that norm, and the people are so accustomed to poverty that they can't really be coerced by the threat of deprivation.  You can maybe give them incentives to change, but they feel no great need to honor such agreements beyond absolute necessity - when cash stops flowing or you stop supervising, they just go back to doing what they did before.  How do you change them?  You'd need to perpetrate a cultural genocide via a de facto police state that fundamentally rearranged their social order.  It would mean an insanely bloody conflict that probably wouldn't be won short of full-blown decimation of the (al least male) population.  And that's assuming you were willing to stick to something like existing LOAC.  You might try something else...  Terrorism.  You could kidnap the sons of powerful leaders and start sending chunks back to their families.  You could make a show of bombing and killing people for defying you in the slightest.  YOu could outright steal their daughters and give them to Western families to be raised with better values.  Of course, if you do that, it raises the question of whether you're actually better anymore.  We tend to look at what our militaries can do and be rightly impressed - as conventional forces, they're the best that have ever existed in human history.  But what you're describing...this \"intervention\" isn't a war.  It's something else entirely, and we aren't capable of doing it.","human_ref_B":"Firstly, there's the moral hazard of intervention. When you intervene, you also incite other groups in the area to incite violence in hopes that they will also receive aid. Not everyone who does this will have good intentions; there's a risk of inciting or prolonging a civil war.  There's also the question of what you're going to do after you've toppled the existing regime (assuming that's your goal). Install democracy? A stable democracy can only exist with certain conditions, like a per capita income of about 14k\/yr, and a relatively diversified economy. This was not the case in a lot of the countries in the Middle East that the US did intervene in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":378.0,"score_ratio":11.0}
+{"post_id":"iyadzo","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: It is a moral imperative of countries who abide by human rights to coerce other countries to respect human rights I have discussed this twice with two people IRL and both times I seem to be in the wrong so I am wanting to challenge my thinking.  The scenario is like this; China is currently interring the Uyghurs and effectively committing genocide by forcibly sterilising the population.  My view is that countries \u201cin the west\u201d should coerce China to stop this activity and if it led to the use of military force then so be it.  The counter-argument both parties I\u2019ve talked to with have said that it is not \u201cthe west\u2019s\u201d job to impose its views on other countries (effectively anti-imperialism) and that morality is subjective, something I disagree with strongly in the situation of right to freedom.  I also feel this way about North Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. \u201cThe west\u201d should intervene in any country where basic human rights are not respected.  Wherever there are people who are oppressed by a regime, it is morally reprehensible, to me, to not use every method available to assist them.   The argument to me that \u201cthey will figure it out for themselves\u201d is completely devoid of humanity. That is to say that the pain and suffering of people in these countries right now will pay off later when that country becomes \u201cenlightened\u201d.   How would I feel living in these societies with the knowledge that life does not have to be this way, that there are countries who are incredibly powerful, more so than mine, that could help but don\u2019t?  I can\u2019t wrap my head around why it is wrong to forcibly coerce countries to respect basic human rights.   Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"g6bgere","c_root_id_B":"g6bgdok","created_at_utc_A":1600869504,"created_at_utc_B":1600869488,"score_A":12,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Have you considered that some populations actually demand (as in, would vote for) human rights abuses?  Much like the war on drugs, or any attempt by a government to subvert the *actual* will of the populace, a foreign government intervention would likely have more unintended consequences and backlash effects than it would have in actual benefits to human rights.  If the majority of a population actual wants to treat others badly, an outside intervention will not solve that problem -- **only an \"inside intervention\", i.e. a change of the will of the people, will solve that problem**.","human_ref_B":"Caveat: I agree with you generally  If expansion of human rights comes through coercive force which itself is an affront to human rights then youve built a tautology of death which will only lead to revolts from the population you are attempting to change.   Imagine tomorrow we invaded Saudi Arabia, toppled the regime and made killing gay people illegal. Woooot massive human rights win to not have gay people thrown off rooves! But wait we just toppled their government if this goes the way of Iraq and we kill up to a million civilians we will breed terrorists who are even more anti-gay and will kill more civilians and gays as revenge for the foreign intervention.   Basically blood begets blood and forcing others to bend to your will may lead to a clap back when instead of bending their society instead breaks.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"iyadzo","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: It is a moral imperative of countries who abide by human rights to coerce other countries to respect human rights I have discussed this twice with two people IRL and both times I seem to be in the wrong so I am wanting to challenge my thinking.  The scenario is like this; China is currently interring the Uyghurs and effectively committing genocide by forcibly sterilising the population.  My view is that countries \u201cin the west\u201d should coerce China to stop this activity and if it led to the use of military force then so be it.  The counter-argument both parties I\u2019ve talked to with have said that it is not \u201cthe west\u2019s\u201d job to impose its views on other countries (effectively anti-imperialism) and that morality is subjective, something I disagree with strongly in the situation of right to freedom.  I also feel this way about North Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. \u201cThe west\u201d should intervene in any country where basic human rights are not respected.  Wherever there are people who are oppressed by a regime, it is morally reprehensible, to me, to not use every method available to assist them.   The argument to me that \u201cthey will figure it out for themselves\u201d is completely devoid of humanity. That is to say that the pain and suffering of people in these countries right now will pay off later when that country becomes \u201cenlightened\u201d.   How would I feel living in these societies with the knowledge that life does not have to be this way, that there are countries who are incredibly powerful, more so than mine, that could help but don\u2019t?  I can\u2019t wrap my head around why it is wrong to forcibly coerce countries to respect basic human rights.   Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"g6bgdok","c_root_id_B":"g6blmeb","created_at_utc_A":1600869488,"created_at_utc_B":1600872314,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Caveat: I agree with you generally  If expansion of human rights comes through coercive force which itself is an affront to human rights then youve built a tautology of death which will only lead to revolts from the population you are attempting to change.   Imagine tomorrow we invaded Saudi Arabia, toppled the regime and made killing gay people illegal. Woooot massive human rights win to not have gay people thrown off rooves! But wait we just toppled their government if this goes the way of Iraq and we kill up to a million civilians we will breed terrorists who are even more anti-gay and will kill more civilians and gays as revenge for the foreign intervention.   Basically blood begets blood and forcing others to bend to your will may lead to a clap back when instead of bending their society instead breaks.","human_ref_B":"I'll give you an example: I come from a small Country in Europe where healthcare is free, whilst in the US it is not. We as a people think that healthcare is a basic human right, but the US doesn't. So according to your proposal, should we intervene and force the US into creating a more humane (according to our views) healthcare system ? Same might be said for death penalty, it's literally against my version of human rights. And if you think about the right to have weapons, well probably this is not technically against our version of human rights but some applications of it are unthinkable here, for instance the existence of armed militia patrolling the streets. We had fascism here so for us it's something really bad. Should we attack the US and force them to respect our ethics and our human rights?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2826.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"iyadzo","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: It is a moral imperative of countries who abide by human rights to coerce other countries to respect human rights I have discussed this twice with two people IRL and both times I seem to be in the wrong so I am wanting to challenge my thinking.  The scenario is like this; China is currently interring the Uyghurs and effectively committing genocide by forcibly sterilising the population.  My view is that countries \u201cin the west\u201d should coerce China to stop this activity and if it led to the use of military force then so be it.  The counter-argument both parties I\u2019ve talked to with have said that it is not \u201cthe west\u2019s\u201d job to impose its views on other countries (effectively anti-imperialism) and that morality is subjective, something I disagree with strongly in the situation of right to freedom.  I also feel this way about North Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. \u201cThe west\u201d should intervene in any country where basic human rights are not respected.  Wherever there are people who are oppressed by a regime, it is morally reprehensible, to me, to not use every method available to assist them.   The argument to me that \u201cthey will figure it out for themselves\u201d is completely devoid of humanity. That is to say that the pain and suffering of people in these countries right now will pay off later when that country becomes \u201cenlightened\u201d.   How would I feel living in these societies with the knowledge that life does not have to be this way, that there are countries who are incredibly powerful, more so than mine, that could help but don\u2019t?  I can\u2019t wrap my head around why it is wrong to forcibly coerce countries to respect basic human rights.   Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"g6bl434","c_root_id_B":"g6blmeb","created_at_utc_A":1600872047,"created_at_utc_B":1600872314,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"If we accepted this view, then it would be extremely easy for other countries to use this as justification to invade anyone they like.  It would be very easy:  1) Step 1, destabilize a country of choice by fermenting chaos, financing terrorism in that country, financing the opposition, finance an anti-government (social) media campaign etc.  2) Step 2, when your target country starts to defend itself by using force, de-cry this as a violation of basic human rights and begin with condemnation and sanction, all the while continuing with Step 1  3) Step 3, at the most opportune time for you, declare that the human rights violations cannot be tolerated anymore and invade  4) Step 4, Profit!","human_ref_B":"I'll give you an example: I come from a small Country in Europe where healthcare is free, whilst in the US it is not. We as a people think that healthcare is a basic human right, but the US doesn't. So according to your proposal, should we intervene and force the US into creating a more humane (according to our views) healthcare system ? Same might be said for death penalty, it's literally against my version of human rights. And if you think about the right to have weapons, well probably this is not technically against our version of human rights but some applications of it are unthinkable here, for instance the existence of armed militia patrolling the streets. We had fascism here so for us it's something really bad. Should we attack the US and force them to respect our ethics and our human rights?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":267.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"iyadzo","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: It is a moral imperative of countries who abide by human rights to coerce other countries to respect human rights I have discussed this twice with two people IRL and both times I seem to be in the wrong so I am wanting to challenge my thinking.  The scenario is like this; China is currently interring the Uyghurs and effectively committing genocide by forcibly sterilising the population.  My view is that countries \u201cin the west\u201d should coerce China to stop this activity and if it led to the use of military force then so be it.  The counter-argument both parties I\u2019ve talked to with have said that it is not \u201cthe west\u2019s\u201d job to impose its views on other countries (effectively anti-imperialism) and that morality is subjective, something I disagree with strongly in the situation of right to freedom.  I also feel this way about North Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. \u201cThe west\u201d should intervene in any country where basic human rights are not respected.  Wherever there are people who are oppressed by a regime, it is morally reprehensible, to me, to not use every method available to assist them.   The argument to me that \u201cthey will figure it out for themselves\u201d is completely devoid of humanity. That is to say that the pain and suffering of people in these countries right now will pay off later when that country becomes \u201cenlightened\u201d.   How would I feel living in these societies with the knowledge that life does not have to be this way, that there are countries who are incredibly powerful, more so than mine, that could help but don\u2019t?  I can\u2019t wrap my head around why it is wrong to forcibly coerce countries to respect basic human rights.   Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"g6blmeb","c_root_id_B":"g6binty","created_at_utc_A":1600872314,"created_at_utc_B":1600870751,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'll give you an example: I come from a small Country in Europe where healthcare is free, whilst in the US it is not. We as a people think that healthcare is a basic human right, but the US doesn't. So according to your proposal, should we intervene and force the US into creating a more humane (according to our views) healthcare system ? Same might be said for death penalty, it's literally against my version of human rights. And if you think about the right to have weapons, well probably this is not technically against our version of human rights but some applications of it are unthinkable here, for instance the existence of armed militia patrolling the streets. We had fascism here so for us it's something really bad. Should we attack the US and force them to respect our ethics and our human rights?","human_ref_B":"Firstly, there's the moral hazard of intervention. When you intervene, you also incite other groups in the area to incite violence in hopes that they will also receive aid. Not everyone who does this will have good intentions; there's a risk of inciting or prolonging a civil war.  There's also the question of what you're going to do after you've toppled the existing regime (assuming that's your goal). Install democracy? A stable democracy can only exist with certain conditions, like a per capita income of about 14k\/yr, and a relatively diversified economy. This was not the case in a lot of the countries in the Middle East that the US did intervene in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1563.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
+{"post_id":"iyadzo","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: It is a moral imperative of countries who abide by human rights to coerce other countries to respect human rights I have discussed this twice with two people IRL and both times I seem to be in the wrong so I am wanting to challenge my thinking.  The scenario is like this; China is currently interring the Uyghurs and effectively committing genocide by forcibly sterilising the population.  My view is that countries \u201cin the west\u201d should coerce China to stop this activity and if it led to the use of military force then so be it.  The counter-argument both parties I\u2019ve talked to with have said that it is not \u201cthe west\u2019s\u201d job to impose its views on other countries (effectively anti-imperialism) and that morality is subjective, something I disagree with strongly in the situation of right to freedom.  I also feel this way about North Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. \u201cThe west\u201d should intervene in any country where basic human rights are not respected.  Wherever there are people who are oppressed by a regime, it is morally reprehensible, to me, to not use every method available to assist them.   The argument to me that \u201cthey will figure it out for themselves\u201d is completely devoid of humanity. That is to say that the pain and suffering of people in these countries right now will pay off later when that country becomes \u201cenlightened\u201d.   How would I feel living in these societies with the knowledge that life does not have to be this way, that there are countries who are incredibly powerful, more so than mine, that could help but don\u2019t?  I can\u2019t wrap my head around why it is wrong to forcibly coerce countries to respect basic human rights.   Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"g6bl434","c_root_id_B":"g6binty","created_at_utc_A":1600872047,"created_at_utc_B":1600870751,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If we accepted this view, then it would be extremely easy for other countries to use this as justification to invade anyone they like.  It would be very easy:  1) Step 1, destabilize a country of choice by fermenting chaos, financing terrorism in that country, financing the opposition, finance an anti-government (social) media campaign etc.  2) Step 2, when your target country starts to defend itself by using force, de-cry this as a violation of basic human rights and begin with condemnation and sanction, all the while continuing with Step 1  3) Step 3, at the most opportune time for you, declare that the human rights violations cannot be tolerated anymore and invade  4) Step 4, Profit!","human_ref_B":"Firstly, there's the moral hazard of intervention. When you intervene, you also incite other groups in the area to incite violence in hopes that they will also receive aid. Not everyone who does this will have good intentions; there's a risk of inciting or prolonging a civil war.  There's also the question of what you're going to do after you've toppled the existing regime (assuming that's your goal). Install democracy? A stable democracy can only exist with certain conditions, like a per capita income of about 14k\/yr, and a relatively diversified economy. This was not the case in a lot of the countries in the Middle East that the US did intervene in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1296.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"iyadzo","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: It is a moral imperative of countries who abide by human rights to coerce other countries to respect human rights I have discussed this twice with two people IRL and both times I seem to be in the wrong so I am wanting to challenge my thinking.  The scenario is like this; China is currently interring the Uyghurs and effectively committing genocide by forcibly sterilising the population.  My view is that countries \u201cin the west\u201d should coerce China to stop this activity and if it led to the use of military force then so be it.  The counter-argument both parties I\u2019ve talked to with have said that it is not \u201cthe west\u2019s\u201d job to impose its views on other countries (effectively anti-imperialism) and that morality is subjective, something I disagree with strongly in the situation of right to freedom.  I also feel this way about North Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. \u201cThe west\u201d should intervene in any country where basic human rights are not respected.  Wherever there are people who are oppressed by a regime, it is morally reprehensible, to me, to not use every method available to assist them.   The argument to me that \u201cthey will figure it out for themselves\u201d is completely devoid of humanity. That is to say that the pain and suffering of people in these countries right now will pay off later when that country becomes \u201cenlightened\u201d.   How would I feel living in these societies with the knowledge that life does not have to be this way, that there are countries who are incredibly powerful, more so than mine, that could help but don\u2019t?  I can\u2019t wrap my head around why it is wrong to forcibly coerce countries to respect basic human rights.   Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"g6blyfd","c_root_id_B":"g6binty","created_at_utc_A":1600872484,"created_at_utc_B":1600870751,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Who gets to decide what is and what isn't a human right? Should the EU invade the US because it refuses to be party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and imprisons 12 year olds?","human_ref_B":"Firstly, there's the moral hazard of intervention. When you intervene, you also incite other groups in the area to incite violence in hopes that they will also receive aid. Not everyone who does this will have good intentions; there's a risk of inciting or prolonging a civil war.  There's also the question of what you're going to do after you've toppled the existing regime (assuming that's your goal). Install democracy? A stable democracy can only exist with certain conditions, like a per capita income of about 14k\/yr, and a relatively diversified economy. This was not the case in a lot of the countries in the Middle East that the US did intervene in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1733.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"iyadzo","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: It is a moral imperative of countries who abide by human rights to coerce other countries to respect human rights I have discussed this twice with two people IRL and both times I seem to be in the wrong so I am wanting to challenge my thinking.  The scenario is like this; China is currently interring the Uyghurs and effectively committing genocide by forcibly sterilising the population.  My view is that countries \u201cin the west\u201d should coerce China to stop this activity and if it led to the use of military force then so be it.  The counter-argument both parties I\u2019ve talked to with have said that it is not \u201cthe west\u2019s\u201d job to impose its views on other countries (effectively anti-imperialism) and that morality is subjective, something I disagree with strongly in the situation of right to freedom.  I also feel this way about North Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. \u201cThe west\u201d should intervene in any country where basic human rights are not respected.  Wherever there are people who are oppressed by a regime, it is morally reprehensible, to me, to not use every method available to assist them.   The argument to me that \u201cthey will figure it out for themselves\u201d is completely devoid of humanity. That is to say that the pain and suffering of people in these countries right now will pay off later when that country becomes \u201cenlightened\u201d.   How would I feel living in these societies with the knowledge that life does not have to be this way, that there are countries who are incredibly powerful, more so than mine, that could help but don\u2019t?  I can\u2019t wrap my head around why it is wrong to forcibly coerce countries to respect basic human rights.   Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"g6brcke","c_root_id_B":"g6binty","created_at_utc_A":1600875216,"created_at_utc_B":1600870751,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"As other posters have mentioned, human rights are quite subjective from nation to nation. To many countries, the US is actually not respecting human rights by forcibly imprisoning immigrants, seperating children from their families, performing hysteroctomies on female migrants... not to mention that neither education nor healthcare is a given right, when many other developed nations do see it as such.   So my question to you is, should all the other nations who see healthcare, education, and like not imprisoning children as a human right, should they forcibly coerce the United States into respecting their human rights?   Perhaps from your American perspective,  your society is the moral society, but to many others it is not. And to go around trying to coerce other nations through either violence or cultural imperialism most often - well actually always devolves into more violence and destabilizes countries, which then only increases human rights violations.   This is why in part we developed the United Nations, so that nations around the world could come together to discuss what human rights should be respected, and for the ICC to deter and hold accountable those who seek to flout international law.","human_ref_B":"Firstly, there's the moral hazard of intervention. When you intervene, you also incite other groups in the area to incite violence in hopes that they will also receive aid. Not everyone who does this will have good intentions; there's a risk of inciting or prolonging a civil war.  There's also the question of what you're going to do after you've toppled the existing regime (assuming that's your goal). Install democracy? A stable democracy can only exist with certain conditions, like a per capita income of about 14k\/yr, and a relatively diversified economy. This was not the case in a lot of the countries in the Middle East that the US did intervene in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4465.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"8s1epq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If you complain about the crime rate among black people, you don't get to complain about black only scholarships. I mean obviously you can say and do whatever you want, but I mean it shows an inconsistent logical system.  But I think a lot of people complain that the existence of scholarships for black people and not so for white people is racist.   And maybe by definition they are, but a lot of these same people also complain about the disproportionately high crime rate in predominantly black areas, and use it as justification for disproportionate incarcerations and arrests.  I believe that education is a good way out of poverty and crime. So why wouldn't these people support scholarships for black people? Also \u2022People have to actually earn scholarships, people don't just be black and get them. They usually have to show that they come from unfortunate circumstances and plan to do something with their life. \u2022They're not given away from the government, but by private entities. These are people who are literally giving back to their communities. But people are trying to put that in a bad light. \u2022It helps erode the idea that hood life is all that's out there for black people. That higher education is an option.","c_root_id_A":"e0vrw3s","c_root_id_B":"e0vrbud","created_at_utc_A":1529344458,"created_at_utc_B":1529343986,"score_A":25,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> I believe that education is a good way out of poverty and crime. So why wouldn't these people support scholarships for black people?   Because they disagree with you.  Your thought process makes logical sense IF and ONLY IF you agree with the premise that education leads to less poverty and crime.  1) There is disproportionate crime among black people.  2) Education leads to a lower likelihood of resorting to crime.  3) Given 1 and 2, it makes sense to support scholarships specifically for black people to alleviate that problem.  So right off the bat, someone has to agree with 1 AND 2 before 3 is the logical conclusion.  So someone could easily believe #1 but not #2.  But moving past that, you also have to assume that it's the SAME black people that are involved in both of those claims.  Someone could easily believe that crime is a huge problem in the black community, but not believe that black-only scholarships are the fix...because the person getting the scholarship probably wasn't contributing to the crime.  So taking this person, who has done pretty well in school and wants to go to college, and giving them a scholarship, doesn't necessarily do anything to fix the crime issue, because there's a pretty good chance that this person wasn't involved in the crime.","human_ref_B":"I want to emphasize that I personally **strongly** disagree with the views I'm about to describe, AND that \"logical consistency\" within a web of opinions is over-rated.  That said, it seems to me that there are clear links between the views that (1) black people should not receive targeted scholarships and (2) disproportionate rates of justice involvement among black people is OK.  You might believe that formal systems ought to be officially color-blind, regardless of differences in barriers experienced as a function of race.  AND\/OR  You might believe that black people are \"naturally\" (and inevitably) more violent and less academic, so you see the differences in outcomes as a function of race as \"OK\" or \"natural.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":472.0,"score_ratio":12.5}
+{"post_id":"8s1epq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If you complain about the crime rate among black people, you don't get to complain about black only scholarships. I mean obviously you can say and do whatever you want, but I mean it shows an inconsistent logical system.  But I think a lot of people complain that the existence of scholarships for black people and not so for white people is racist.   And maybe by definition they are, but a lot of these same people also complain about the disproportionately high crime rate in predominantly black areas, and use it as justification for disproportionate incarcerations and arrests.  I believe that education is a good way out of poverty and crime. So why wouldn't these people support scholarships for black people? Also \u2022People have to actually earn scholarships, people don't just be black and get them. They usually have to show that they come from unfortunate circumstances and plan to do something with their life. \u2022They're not given away from the government, but by private entities. These are people who are literally giving back to their communities. But people are trying to put that in a bad light. \u2022It helps erode the idea that hood life is all that's out there for black people. That higher education is an option.","c_root_id_A":"e0vrbud","c_root_id_B":"e0vrz4l","created_at_utc_A":1529343986,"created_at_utc_B":1529344527,"score_A":2,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"I want to emphasize that I personally **strongly** disagree with the views I'm about to describe, AND that \"logical consistency\" within a web of opinions is over-rated.  That said, it seems to me that there are clear links between the views that (1) black people should not receive targeted scholarships and (2) disproportionate rates of justice involvement among black people is OK.  You might believe that formal systems ought to be officially color-blind, regardless of differences in barriers experienced as a function of race.  AND\/OR  You might believe that black people are \"naturally\" (and inevitably) more violent and less academic, so you see the differences in outcomes as a function of race as \"OK\" or \"natural.\"","human_ref_B":"This logic only works if you think of a black person not as individual, but rather as part of a group. However, these scholarships are given to individuals, not to every black person.  Yes, giving people advantages in life for their race is racist.  But no, showing a problem in black culture is not. Crime is huge problem in black neighbourhoods and should be tackled. That's the root cause. Not giving different treatment to individuals for things outside their power.  >So why wouldn't these people support scholarships for black people?   They do. But if those black **individuals** are worse than non-black **individual** at their studies, you've just done unfair segreration because someone was unfortunate enough to not born in black family.  They don't support scholarships for blacks **because** they are black, rather, **despite** that. Getting scholarship because of a race, rather than despite it only hurts the individual.  >They usually have to show that they come from unfortunate circumstances and plan to do something with their life.  That sounds awfully racist, even though I know you didn't meant it this way: Does being a black make you poor? Then why can't poor white people get the same scholarships? Heck, why are they named after a race rather than something like \"poverty only scholarships\"? There are many whites and asians living in poor areas stuck in poverty. Why are they not helped?  >It helps erode the idea that hood life is all that's out there for black people  Better (note: not cheaper) education, police funding and regional housing control do the same, while actually hitting the root cause. Root cause of \"hood life\" as you call it is the crime, which comes from the poverty. Forcing poor people to live in their own area creates poor areas, \"hoods\", while bad education and therefore motivation to drive for higher education causes people to choose \"hoodlife\". This isn't fixed by letting people who already want to go to higher education and therefore leave hood life get ahead of other similar-minded people for no fault of their own.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":541.0,"score_ratio":8.5}
+{"post_id":"8s1epq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If you complain about the crime rate among black people, you don't get to complain about black only scholarships. I mean obviously you can say and do whatever you want, but I mean it shows an inconsistent logical system.  But I think a lot of people complain that the existence of scholarships for black people and not so for white people is racist.   And maybe by definition they are, but a lot of these same people also complain about the disproportionately high crime rate in predominantly black areas, and use it as justification for disproportionate incarcerations and arrests.  I believe that education is a good way out of poverty and crime. So why wouldn't these people support scholarships for black people? Also \u2022People have to actually earn scholarships, people don't just be black and get them. They usually have to show that they come from unfortunate circumstances and plan to do something with their life. \u2022They're not given away from the government, but by private entities. These are people who are literally giving back to their communities. But people are trying to put that in a bad light. \u2022It helps erode the idea that hood life is all that's out there for black people. That higher education is an option.","c_root_id_A":"e0vrbud","c_root_id_B":"e0vsxml","created_at_utc_A":1529343986,"created_at_utc_B":1529345339,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I want to emphasize that I personally **strongly** disagree with the views I'm about to describe, AND that \"logical consistency\" within a web of opinions is over-rated.  That said, it seems to me that there are clear links between the views that (1) black people should not receive targeted scholarships and (2) disproportionate rates of justice involvement among black people is OK.  You might believe that formal systems ought to be officially color-blind, regardless of differences in barriers experienced as a function of race.  AND\/OR  You might believe that black people are \"naturally\" (and inevitably) more violent and less academic, so you see the differences in outcomes as a function of race as \"OK\" or \"natural.\"","human_ref_B":"Car insurance rates incorporate a lot of different factors in deciding your rates.  Generally, the more factors they use the more accurate predictions they can make.  One of the factors that they could use to improve predictions and don't use is race (though they do use gender).  I'm a fan of not allowing racially based decisions, even if this means slightly more inappropriate car insurance rates, because I don't approve of people making decisions based on someone's race or with race getting weighed into the decision, especially when it comes to decisions on how much money to charge or give to someone.  I'm also a fan of fixing education in low income neighborhoods and I think states need to step in and figure out a way to get better funding for poor school districts.  But that doesn't mean I want them to start a program that gives money specifically to schools with higher numbers of black students.  Viewing and worrying about racial statistics and even to some degree implementing programs to attempt to fix some of those statistics is very different from implementing a program that is explicitly racist.  Just because being explicitly racist might be a slightly more efficient way forward, doesn't mean the fundamental unfairness of it is justified.  We need to find solutions that don't discriminate against people.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1353.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"8s1epq","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: If you complain about the crime rate among black people, you don't get to complain about black only scholarships. I mean obviously you can say and do whatever you want, but I mean it shows an inconsistent logical system.  But I think a lot of people complain that the existence of scholarships for black people and not so for white people is racist.   And maybe by definition they are, but a lot of these same people also complain about the disproportionately high crime rate in predominantly black areas, and use it as justification for disproportionate incarcerations and arrests.  I believe that education is a good way out of poverty and crime. So why wouldn't these people support scholarships for black people? Also \u2022People have to actually earn scholarships, people don't just be black and get them. They usually have to show that they come from unfortunate circumstances and plan to do something with their life. \u2022They're not given away from the government, but by private entities. These are people who are literally giving back to their communities. But people are trying to put that in a bad light. \u2022It helps erode the idea that hood life is all that's out there for black people. That higher education is an option.","c_root_id_A":"e0vx7os","c_root_id_B":"e0vrbud","created_at_utc_A":1529348846,"created_at_utc_B":1529343986,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Black scholarships are fine. Scholarships are given by private institutions and individuals and they have every right to choose any criteria they want. Nothing wrong with white only scholarships too","human_ref_B":"I want to emphasize that I personally **strongly** disagree with the views I'm about to describe, AND that \"logical consistency\" within a web of opinions is over-rated.  That said, it seems to me that there are clear links between the views that (1) black people should not receive targeted scholarships and (2) disproportionate rates of justice involvement among black people is OK.  You might believe that formal systems ought to be officially color-blind, regardless of differences in barriers experienced as a function of race.  AND\/OR  You might believe that black people are \"naturally\" (and inevitably) more violent and less academic, so you see the differences in outcomes as a function of race as \"OK\" or \"natural.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4860.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"1kc07r","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"I think that people who complain about working in an office don't realize how lucky they are. CMV. So here's some background. I'm 21 years old. I'm now working in my sixth summer job. I spent 3 summers working at a summer camp as a counsellor and activity specialist. While i did enjoy these jobs,they were also very exhausting as I pretty much had to keep a rambunctious group of children entertained all day, as well as making sure that they didn't kill themselves or each other. I made under mimimum wage during these summers, making as little as $500 for an entire summer's work during my first summer working at a camp.  I then spent another 2 summers doing physical labour, mowing lawns and gardening for one summer, and working in a patio furniture store's warehouse for another. These jobs were also very exhausting due to heavy lifting, assembling confusing patio furniture, working outside during one of my hometown's hottest summers on record, and dealing with shitty customers. I made minimum wage one summer ($10.25\/hour) and slightly above minimum wage ($11\/hour) for the other.  This summer, I'm working in an office for the first time. While the work can be boring and tedious at times it is mostly interesting, and perfectly suffices in passing the time. I've also been praised by my boss for the speed and efficiency in which I complete the tasks assigned to me. This is despite the fact that I spend about 35-40% of the day browsing reddit on my phone. On top of that, I'm now making more than twice the amount of money I made working physical labour. To sum it all up, I'm making double the money, to comfortably do about half the work (which is much easier anyway) I was doing before.  This has led me to believe that many people who work in offices don't appreciate how much easier their lives are in comparison to those who make a living out of doing physical labour, child care, education etc.   Am I wrong for thinking this? Change my view\/","c_root_id_A":"cbnew5u","c_root_id_B":"cbnfeo2","created_at_utc_A":1376463626,"created_at_utc_B":1376466590,"score_A":10,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"What exactly is *easier* about working in an office job? You know that not all office jobs are the same, right? And that there's usually hierarchies and office politics in office environments?   From a different point of view, I personally HATE sitting down all day. I work in an office, in quite a stressful and challenging role, and being based at a desk for 9+ hours a day is NOT fun and my body hates me for it. I try to be as active as possible in the office (getting up to make a cup of tea, get a drink, get up and walk around whenever I can) but for the most part, I need to sit at a computer and work. This has lead to back and neck problems and I'm sure I'm not alone in that department. I would much prefer to be more physically active during the day but unfortunately my 'office' job doesn't allow that.   By the way, from the sounds of things, if it's your *first* office job and you're on your phone most of the time, then you're hardly in a position to comment on whether everyone else's life is easier, because you're at the bottom of the pile so to speak with a relatively minimal or easy workload in comparison to those above you, and I'm sure the CEO of your company or the managing director, anyone else in senior management in fact, wouldn't think they have it 'easier' than physical labourers when they're working 60+ hour weeks.","human_ref_B":"People like to feel they are accomplishing something.  Often office jobs are often pointless and do nothing.  http:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/id\/100835261  That's been my experience talking to my friends. The ones who really hate office jobs feel that they are doing nothing important and they are just wasting their time.   Your office is better, since speed and efficiency (and goal accomplishment) are actually important.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2964.0,"score_ratio":2.1}
+{"post_id":"ltpwpa","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Forgiving student debt isn't a solution at all. It will actually make the problem worse  If we cancel student debt it means the taxpayers pay a ton of $$$$ to colleges and universities. So what will happen in a few more years when the next round of graduates are finished? Do we just forgive student debt again? and forever? This is the equivalent of bailing water out of a boat with a bucket but not fixing the hole in the boat. It will fill back up and we will be bailing again.  Why will the problem get worse? If we do this huge student debt cancellation (payoff with taxpayers $) college tuition prices will go up - why? Because colleges can charge whatever they want and the taxpayer will pay for it at the next bailout. We have seen over the past 30 years that universities will charge as much as they possibly can while still maintaining a high enrollment. Who wins? Universities and colleges because their tuition increases and is paid for by the taxpayer.  What needs to be done? Student loan financing reform - leading to TUITION REFORM! We need to limit the amount of student loans that each student is given. A set amount (much lower than current numbers) for undergraduate, post grad, doctorate, etc. If there are not students enrolled for the programs (because they cannot afford the tuition), over time the universities will lower their tuition to fill the seats. This is why tuition increased over the last 20+ years at an astonishing amount - because there is an almost unlimited amount of debt that a student can borrow and its all funded by the govt backed student loan program. Reduce the $$ available for student loans and the tuition will follow. That is how we fix the hole in the boat. Make educational prices reasonable again. Maybe universities wont be able to have buildings that cost hundreds of millions of dollars but that's ok.  After this has been completed we can then discuss how to help those that have already been ripped off recently - might require a one time student debt cancellation.     As only one example - Only in the US can you graduate from dental\/medical school with $500k in student debt. HALF A MILLION DOLLARS?! That's insanity - even for a higher income profession. If you graduated 30 years ago from dental\/medical school you probably would have about 40-50K in student debt. No one would have loaned you $500k in the 90s - and there was no tuition even close to that high.  There are  a lot of other factors to consider as well but all of this recent push to forgive student debt is crazy to me if we do not have a plan to fix the system.  Next year there will be more student debt that people cannot afford and we will be in the same discussion over and over.  Trillions of dollars.  Right now there is around $1,700,000,000,000 in US student debt.","c_root_id_A":"gp0m7ee","c_root_id_B":"gp0mfom","created_at_utc_A":1614438565,"created_at_utc_B":1614438647,"score_A":9,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"I'm pretty sure the student loan forgiveness programs would dovetail with tuition reform and\/or increased grants to reduce the number of student loans. Loan forgiveness is one piece of the larger puzzle.","human_ref_B":"> This is the equivalent of bailing water out of a boat with a bucket but not fixing the hole in the boat  I think the idea is to actually fix the boat as well, but that'd be quite a bit harder than a quick bailout and it doesn't help people who already graduated.  > We have seen over the past 30 years that universities will charge as much as they possibly can while still maintaining a high enrollment. Who wins? Universities and colleges because their tuition increases and is paid for by the taxpayer.  Universities aren't (generally) for-profit organizations operating in a supply-demand context, and tuition is usually a loss for them (subsidized by their endowment and by the government).  Prices have gone up because of reduced subsidies and unfunded mandates (and I suspect for a lot of universities increased local costs of living, hence increased wage expenses, probably play into it to).  Also bear in mind that most major universities are public.  We can require them to change their policies directly.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":82.0,"score_ratio":3.8888888889}
+{"post_id":"ltpwpa","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Forgiving student debt isn't a solution at all. It will actually make the problem worse  If we cancel student debt it means the taxpayers pay a ton of $$$$ to colleges and universities. So what will happen in a few more years when the next round of graduates are finished? Do we just forgive student debt again? and forever? This is the equivalent of bailing water out of a boat with a bucket but not fixing the hole in the boat. It will fill back up and we will be bailing again.  Why will the problem get worse? If we do this huge student debt cancellation (payoff with taxpayers $) college tuition prices will go up - why? Because colleges can charge whatever they want and the taxpayer will pay for it at the next bailout. We have seen over the past 30 years that universities will charge as much as they possibly can while still maintaining a high enrollment. Who wins? Universities and colleges because their tuition increases and is paid for by the taxpayer.  What needs to be done? Student loan financing reform - leading to TUITION REFORM! We need to limit the amount of student loans that each student is given. A set amount (much lower than current numbers) for undergraduate, post grad, doctorate, etc. If there are not students enrolled for the programs (because they cannot afford the tuition), over time the universities will lower their tuition to fill the seats. This is why tuition increased over the last 20+ years at an astonishing amount - because there is an almost unlimited amount of debt that a student can borrow and its all funded by the govt backed student loan program. Reduce the $$ available for student loans and the tuition will follow. That is how we fix the hole in the boat. Make educational prices reasonable again. Maybe universities wont be able to have buildings that cost hundreds of millions of dollars but that's ok.  After this has been completed we can then discuss how to help those that have already been ripped off recently - might require a one time student debt cancellation.     As only one example - Only in the US can you graduate from dental\/medical school with $500k in student debt. HALF A MILLION DOLLARS?! That's insanity - even for a higher income profession. If you graduated 30 years ago from dental\/medical school you probably would have about 40-50K in student debt. No one would have loaned you $500k in the 90s - and there was no tuition even close to that high.  There are  a lot of other factors to consider as well but all of this recent push to forgive student debt is crazy to me if we do not have a plan to fix the system.  Next year there will be more student debt that people cannot afford and we will be in the same discussion over and over.  Trillions of dollars.  Right now there is around $1,700,000,000,000 in US student debt.","c_root_id_A":"gp1n6og","c_root_id_B":"gp1ozjr","created_at_utc_A":1614448594,"created_at_utc_B":1614449239,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m not extremely well versed in all the details of the problem, so there admittedly may be some nuance here im missing, but...  Wouldn\u2019t this, in effect, be accomplished just as well by students paying attention to how much debt they\u2019re accruing in student loans? I think that in the US it\u2019s entirely possible to get an affordable education if you\u2019re intentional about it. And students need to also pay attention to how much they\u2019re spending vs what they expect to make.  But instead we have students that will spend $20,000 a year to get an education degree so that they can make $30,000 a year.   State universities, especially when coupled with a couple years of local or community colleges, won\u2019t leave you with an extreme amount of student loan debt, and if you\u2019re going for the right degree then you can probably accomplish an education reasonably.   For the degrees that don\u2019t pay shit but are still necessary, like teaching, there are often great programs as well. I know one state that an education degree is free if you teach in the state a certain number of years after.","human_ref_B":"One argument I would make is that the current situation is a short term issue that needs to be addressed or we're all fucked anyway:  I.e. a combination of un(der)employment due to Covid, and un(der)employment due to automation and outsourcing.   Without instituting UBI or something, our only hope for a return to reasonable employment\/wages is to make education basically free to all so we have a more educated workforce that is capable of moving \"up the value chain\".   So, basically speaking, the end game is either make education less necessary or make it more or less free (which is basically the same as forgiving debt used to pay for it).   National debt really isn't an issue (at least not the way that personal debt is an issue... they are just unrelated concepts).   Return on Investment is the issue. Right now, for reasons not the fault of the students in the last decade, the RoI on education sucks. Either their lives are destroyed or we do something about it.   That won't always be the problem... indeed it *can't* be a long-term problem.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":645.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"ltpwpa","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Forgiving student debt isn't a solution at all. It will actually make the problem worse  If we cancel student debt it means the taxpayers pay a ton of $$$$ to colleges and universities. So what will happen in a few more years when the next round of graduates are finished? Do we just forgive student debt again? and forever? This is the equivalent of bailing water out of a boat with a bucket but not fixing the hole in the boat. It will fill back up and we will be bailing again.  Why will the problem get worse? If we do this huge student debt cancellation (payoff with taxpayers $) college tuition prices will go up - why? Because colleges can charge whatever they want and the taxpayer will pay for it at the next bailout. We have seen over the past 30 years that universities will charge as much as they possibly can while still maintaining a high enrollment. Who wins? Universities and colleges because their tuition increases and is paid for by the taxpayer.  What needs to be done? Student loan financing reform - leading to TUITION REFORM! We need to limit the amount of student loans that each student is given. A set amount (much lower than current numbers) for undergraduate, post grad, doctorate, etc. If there are not students enrolled for the programs (because they cannot afford the tuition), over time the universities will lower their tuition to fill the seats. This is why tuition increased over the last 20+ years at an astonishing amount - because there is an almost unlimited amount of debt that a student can borrow and its all funded by the govt backed student loan program. Reduce the $$ available for student loans and the tuition will follow. That is how we fix the hole in the boat. Make educational prices reasonable again. Maybe universities wont be able to have buildings that cost hundreds of millions of dollars but that's ok.  After this has been completed we can then discuss how to help those that have already been ripped off recently - might require a one time student debt cancellation.     As only one example - Only in the US can you graduate from dental\/medical school with $500k in student debt. HALF A MILLION DOLLARS?! That's insanity - even for a higher income profession. If you graduated 30 years ago from dental\/medical school you probably would have about 40-50K in student debt. No one would have loaned you $500k in the 90s - and there was no tuition even close to that high.  There are  a lot of other factors to consider as well but all of this recent push to forgive student debt is crazy to me if we do not have a plan to fix the system.  Next year there will be more student debt that people cannot afford and we will be in the same discussion over and over.  Trillions of dollars.  Right now there is around $1,700,000,000,000 in US student debt.","c_root_id_A":"gp4t9r7","c_root_id_B":"gp1u1zr","created_at_utc_A":1614492860,"created_at_utc_B":1614450726,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> If we cancel student debt it means the taxpayers pay a ton of $$$$ to colleges and universities.  The universities already have their money, it's the loan providers who would have their debt instruments bought out.  > So what will happen in a few more years when the next round of graduates are finished? Do we just forgive student debt again? and forever?  I mean, no but on the other hand, why not? The nett outcome is similar, except the treasury can borrow the money at the lower interest rates it sets itself than a commercial loan whose rate accounts for profit margins. For reasons I will come to, I agree with you but the idea of borrowing from the state itself bears some merit.  >college tuition prices will go up - why? Because colleges can charge whatever they want and the taxpayer will pay for it at the next bailout.  The main reason not to go down this route of course is that it would destroy university pricing mechanisms, agreed.   Price discovery happens when an equilibrium is found between a product's perceived value and a customer's willingness to pay for it. Going down this route would mandate a hard fee cap. It's certainly an option - many countries use this methods successfully.   Just lock in the fees from 2020 and allow for inflation going forward.  >What needs to be done? Student loan financing reform - leading to TUITION REFORM! We need to limit the amount of student loans that each student is given.  This isn't a solution at all, as you put it earlier.   \"Wait a second, you just suggested this yourself.\"   Right, but that exposes the fundamental issue with your question and the way you framed it. It isn't a solution at all - but from whose POV is that statement true?   Fixing the situation for future students is a solution for people in the future, but it does not solve anything for people currently unduly burdened.   Fixing the situation for current students is a solution for everyone *who currently needs one*, but it does not solve everything for people who have yet to be burdened.   Fact is, student loan forgiveness is going to be a key part of THE solution, it just doesn't work on its own. If future students are going to borrow at low interest sums from the federal government then current students will need their debts partially forgiven, allowing for a reasonable threshold (the first 50k is unforgiven etc).   This will mean wholly paying off the current lenders on behalf of past students and establishing new agreements with smaller sums in place.   That's my answer to your question. A simple solution doesn't exist to student loans, so nothing is 'the' solution. But there is no fair restructuring of the system you can achieve which doesn't involve, at some stage, buying out existing loans. Therefore, no matter the solution, forgiving student loans will at some stage be part of the solution.   A solution which doesn't rescue past students is no solution at all.","human_ref_B":"I think the appropriate answer is to cap interest rates and allow people to declare bankruptcy (like they can with all other debt). Students loans are loans, it needs reform. I think a lot of the movement stems from the anger at corporate bailouts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":42134.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"ltpwpa","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Forgiving student debt isn't a solution at all. It will actually make the problem worse  If we cancel student debt it means the taxpayers pay a ton of $$$$ to colleges and universities. So what will happen in a few more years when the next round of graduates are finished? Do we just forgive student debt again? and forever? This is the equivalent of bailing water out of a boat with a bucket but not fixing the hole in the boat. It will fill back up and we will be bailing again.  Why will the problem get worse? If we do this huge student debt cancellation (payoff with taxpayers $) college tuition prices will go up - why? Because colleges can charge whatever they want and the taxpayer will pay for it at the next bailout. We have seen over the past 30 years that universities will charge as much as they possibly can while still maintaining a high enrollment. Who wins? Universities and colleges because their tuition increases and is paid for by the taxpayer.  What needs to be done? Student loan financing reform - leading to TUITION REFORM! We need to limit the amount of student loans that each student is given. A set amount (much lower than current numbers) for undergraduate, post grad, doctorate, etc. If there are not students enrolled for the programs (because they cannot afford the tuition), over time the universities will lower their tuition to fill the seats. This is why tuition increased over the last 20+ years at an astonishing amount - because there is an almost unlimited amount of debt that a student can borrow and its all funded by the govt backed student loan program. Reduce the $$ available for student loans and the tuition will follow. That is how we fix the hole in the boat. Make educational prices reasonable again. Maybe universities wont be able to have buildings that cost hundreds of millions of dollars but that's ok.  After this has been completed we can then discuss how to help those that have already been ripped off recently - might require a one time student debt cancellation.     As only one example - Only in the US can you graduate from dental\/medical school with $500k in student debt. HALF A MILLION DOLLARS?! That's insanity - even for a higher income profession. If you graduated 30 years ago from dental\/medical school you probably would have about 40-50K in student debt. No one would have loaned you $500k in the 90s - and there was no tuition even close to that high.  There are  a lot of other factors to consider as well but all of this recent push to forgive student debt is crazy to me if we do not have a plan to fix the system.  Next year there will be more student debt that people cannot afford and we will be in the same discussion over and over.  Trillions of dollars.  Right now there is around $1,700,000,000,000 in US student debt.","c_root_id_A":"gp4t9r7","c_root_id_B":"gp3w7qw","created_at_utc_A":1614492860,"created_at_utc_B":1614476536,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> If we cancel student debt it means the taxpayers pay a ton of $$$$ to colleges and universities.  The universities already have their money, it's the loan providers who would have their debt instruments bought out.  > So what will happen in a few more years when the next round of graduates are finished? Do we just forgive student debt again? and forever?  I mean, no but on the other hand, why not? The nett outcome is similar, except the treasury can borrow the money at the lower interest rates it sets itself than a commercial loan whose rate accounts for profit margins. For reasons I will come to, I agree with you but the idea of borrowing from the state itself bears some merit.  >college tuition prices will go up - why? Because colleges can charge whatever they want and the taxpayer will pay for it at the next bailout.  The main reason not to go down this route of course is that it would destroy university pricing mechanisms, agreed.   Price discovery happens when an equilibrium is found between a product's perceived value and a customer's willingness to pay for it. Going down this route would mandate a hard fee cap. It's certainly an option - many countries use this methods successfully.   Just lock in the fees from 2020 and allow for inflation going forward.  >What needs to be done? Student loan financing reform - leading to TUITION REFORM! We need to limit the amount of student loans that each student is given.  This isn't a solution at all, as you put it earlier.   \"Wait a second, you just suggested this yourself.\"   Right, but that exposes the fundamental issue with your question and the way you framed it. It isn't a solution at all - but from whose POV is that statement true?   Fixing the situation for future students is a solution for people in the future, but it does not solve anything for people currently unduly burdened.   Fixing the situation for current students is a solution for everyone *who currently needs one*, but it does not solve everything for people who have yet to be burdened.   Fact is, student loan forgiveness is going to be a key part of THE solution, it just doesn't work on its own. If future students are going to borrow at low interest sums from the federal government then current students will need their debts partially forgiven, allowing for a reasonable threshold (the first 50k is unforgiven etc).   This will mean wholly paying off the current lenders on behalf of past students and establishing new agreements with smaller sums in place.   That's my answer to your question. A simple solution doesn't exist to student loans, so nothing is 'the' solution. But there is no fair restructuring of the system you can achieve which doesn't involve, at some stage, buying out existing loans. Therefore, no matter the solution, forgiving student loans will at some stage be part of the solution.   A solution which doesn't rescue past students is no solution at all.","human_ref_B":"I mean, I\u2019ll never understand why you guys don\u2019t have a system reasonably similar to here in the UK. It seems mad the whole setup you have on so many levels, but then again it\u2019s not just universities over there I could say that about...  First off, why the fuck are your student loans ran by private companies?  Here, they\u2019re from the government, and because of that, we don\u2019t have \u2018monthly repayments\u2019 or anything we have to meet - in fact, it\u2019s not really a loan, because of how it works (and also it doesn\u2019t affect credit score or anything money related either) - as our system is a *tax* - you pay back 9% of your income over \u00a327,500 (I think that\u2019s the amount right now), which given our median wage is \u00a332,000 a year, it\u2019s not that substantial. And if you ARE paying back a substantial amount, *your paycheck is large enough the added cost doesn\u2019t matter*.  We also have capped tuition fees. Our universities manage fine with tuition fees (even for international students, for whom our cap doesn\u2019t apply!) a *fraction* of that of your unis, and are, at the very least, equally well equipped and prestigious universities. They make money through other means, but also, having 10k students paying 10k a year is a hundred million already. Given that universities often have 3-4 years of undergrad students, often with 10k students a year, as well as various postgrads? That\u2019s a lot of revenue already.  Also, our student \u2018loans\u2019 have super low interest (I *believe* the figure is 3% more yearly interest than the bank interest rate, making it 3.25% yearly right now, but I could be a little off there) which is fixed by the government, *and not a private company*. It is also written off after 30 years, and idk if you guys have that or not.  But yeah, your system just seems kinda broken, as you say, ngl, especially with the ever increasing demand for an educated workforce.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16324.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"265ac8","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: All fines should be a percent of personal income instead of flat penalties. Under our current system an individual can choose to break the law with minimal effective penalty, if they are wealthy enough. A store clerk, who is caught speeding, might pay 1\/6th of a month's wages on the fine. A computer programmer or lawyer might pay 1\/40th a month's wage for the same offense and a hedge fund manager might pay 1\/1000th a month's wage for the offense.  Each traffic violation may come with a monetary fine. This fine is either punitive or not punitive in nature.  If the reasoning behind a fine is to act as a deterrent and our justice system is supposed to apply punishment equally, then fines based on percentage of total wealth or yearly income seem like the fairest way to accomplish that goal. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"chns4i1","c_root_id_B":"chns3iv","created_at_utc_A":1400702993,"created_at_utc_B":1400702940,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm not sure your proposal fixes the problem.  If you're working a minimum wage job, losing any portion of your paycheck is going to hurt a lot; you might not be able to pay rent, buy gas, eat, etc.  If you're a wealthy hedge fund manager, it's just going to be a costly annoyance; you will never be in danger of starving or missing your rent, you'll just have slightly less disposable income.  EDIT -- Also, a wealthy person could still continue to break the law with impunity.  If someone has a ton of money in the bank, even taking all of their income won't be a problem because they can, e.g., just draw down on savings.","human_ref_B":"Another thing you have to keep in mind is that there are significant differences not only in total income, but in the percentage of income that can be understood as disposable. I make very little money, so only about 15% of my regular income is available to me after I've finished paying for the basic necessities of life. Charging all violators a flat rate across the board would not really solve the problem you've identified, because a rate that a cashier could reasonably be expected to pay would still represent a nominal burden from the perspective of a hedge fund manager.  It might be better to approach penalties the way we do income taxes: by establishing income-based \"brackets\" and paying delayed refunds to people who are experiencing significant financial hardship.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":53.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"78j7oe","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Capital Gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income I consider myself a libertarian and therefore am fiscally conservative. However, given the debates over the tax code overhaul, I truly believe we need to go back to the days of capital gains being treated the same as ordinary income.    This would generate more tax revenue than by eliminating the SALT deductions (state, local and property taxes).   I believe the SALT deductions are necessary because you shouldn't pay taxes on money spent paying other taxes.    I do live in one of the so called donor states so my federal taxes will go up under Trumps plan, but I've been in favor of changing the capital gains tax ever since I graduated college with an accounting degree back in 2008.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dou8j91","c_root_id_B":"douqmpb","created_at_utc_A":1508882917,"created_at_utc_B":1508904796,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I have never really understood the macroeconomics of tax policy, but as a libertarian why would you want the government to generate more tax revenue?","human_ref_B":"Honestly, increasing capital gains taxes or (ideally) just counting capital gains as income for the purposes of income taxes only makes sense if we drop corporate taxes altogether. We have the highest nominal corporate tax rate in the world. No one pays the nominal tax rate because the tax code is riddled with exemptions and credits and discounts. Some companies have played that game so well that they pay nothing in taxes, and a handful get a net positive payment. Which is dumb.  More generally, corporate taxes are sold as a \"tax on the rich\" but that's not how it works. When companies are taxed they raise prices as much as they can so it isn't the company that pays the tax. No, I pay that tax. Yeah, the company sends in the check but I'm the one out the money. If the company can't raise prices because we collectively won't put up with that then it's the workers who are turned down for raises or don't get hired or might get laid off. If companies can get away with some 'belt tightening' to make their earnings numbers look better to investors then you bet your ass that belt is tightening.  It's only when neither of those things are possible, when prices are as high as they are going to go and the belt is as tight as it's going to get, when the person paying the tax is the shareholders of the company. But are all shareholders rich? Well, once upon a time they were, but now some of the biggest shareholders around are the funds that pay out retirement and pensions. So, you hit retirees and current workers as much as you hit rich folks.  So, what tax does generally hit rich folks? Capital gains. Why? Because it's on the other side of the equation. It's taxing rich people directly where they can't shift its responsibility to anyone else. So, why is the Capital Gains rates lower? Well, there are two reasons. First is to encourage investment, a gentle nudge towards putting money to use instead of gold-filled swimming pools. And that does work... sorta... during specific parts of the business cycle. The other reason is a fairness argument. So, you make a dollar by owning a business, shrewd planning and a not insignificant amount of design work pays off. Only that $1 you made gets taxed 35% when it leaves the company and gets hit *again* when it enters your hand? Possibly as much as another 35% if we're using income tax brackets. Well, fuck that. The Federal government gets a full 70 cents on the dollar? And then States sometimes get another 15% and occasionally a city asks for 10%. So now, fuck. I got a whole shiny nickel out of that dollar I made. While unfairness should happen to rich folk every so often there's a point beyond which it's just dumb.  We would be better off if we taxed capital gains as income dropped the corporate tax altogether to take the boot off of the dollar store shopper a bit and stop the whole \"double tax bonus\" crazy train. It should even out revenue wise over the long run. But, we'd come out big ahead if we were to do something crazy like issue more grants to businesses starting in economically depressed areas and gave tax breaks to start ups instead of to the biggest companies in the world for their second or third headquarters.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21879.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"78j7oe","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Capital Gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income I consider myself a libertarian and therefore am fiscally conservative. However, given the debates over the tax code overhaul, I truly believe we need to go back to the days of capital gains being treated the same as ordinary income.    This would generate more tax revenue than by eliminating the SALT deductions (state, local and property taxes).   I believe the SALT deductions are necessary because you shouldn't pay taxes on money spent paying other taxes.    I do live in one of the so called donor states so my federal taxes will go up under Trumps plan, but I've been in favor of changing the capital gains tax ever since I graduated college with an accounting degree back in 2008.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"douqmpb","c_root_id_B":"douaix5","created_at_utc_A":1508904796,"created_at_utc_B":1508885281,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Honestly, increasing capital gains taxes or (ideally) just counting capital gains as income for the purposes of income taxes only makes sense if we drop corporate taxes altogether. We have the highest nominal corporate tax rate in the world. No one pays the nominal tax rate because the tax code is riddled with exemptions and credits and discounts. Some companies have played that game so well that they pay nothing in taxes, and a handful get a net positive payment. Which is dumb.  More generally, corporate taxes are sold as a \"tax on the rich\" but that's not how it works. When companies are taxed they raise prices as much as they can so it isn't the company that pays the tax. No, I pay that tax. Yeah, the company sends in the check but I'm the one out the money. If the company can't raise prices because we collectively won't put up with that then it's the workers who are turned down for raises or don't get hired or might get laid off. If companies can get away with some 'belt tightening' to make their earnings numbers look better to investors then you bet your ass that belt is tightening.  It's only when neither of those things are possible, when prices are as high as they are going to go and the belt is as tight as it's going to get, when the person paying the tax is the shareholders of the company. But are all shareholders rich? Well, once upon a time they were, but now some of the biggest shareholders around are the funds that pay out retirement and pensions. So, you hit retirees and current workers as much as you hit rich folks.  So, what tax does generally hit rich folks? Capital gains. Why? Because it's on the other side of the equation. It's taxing rich people directly where they can't shift its responsibility to anyone else. So, why is the Capital Gains rates lower? Well, there are two reasons. First is to encourage investment, a gentle nudge towards putting money to use instead of gold-filled swimming pools. And that does work... sorta... during specific parts of the business cycle. The other reason is a fairness argument. So, you make a dollar by owning a business, shrewd planning and a not insignificant amount of design work pays off. Only that $1 you made gets taxed 35% when it leaves the company and gets hit *again* when it enters your hand? Possibly as much as another 35% if we're using income tax brackets. Well, fuck that. The Federal government gets a full 70 cents on the dollar? And then States sometimes get another 15% and occasionally a city asks for 10%. So now, fuck. I got a whole shiny nickel out of that dollar I made. While unfairness should happen to rich folk every so often there's a point beyond which it's just dumb.  We would be better off if we taxed capital gains as income dropped the corporate tax altogether to take the boot off of the dollar store shopper a bit and stop the whole \"double tax bonus\" crazy train. It should even out revenue wise over the long run. But, we'd come out big ahead if we were to do something crazy like issue more grants to businesses starting in economically depressed areas and gave tax breaks to start ups instead of to the biggest companies in the world for their second or third headquarters.","human_ref_B":"You don't really explain why you think they should be taxed the same as regular income other then because you are a fiscal conservative which is somewhat counter intuitive. So I'm just going to throw out a few pro arguments:  * Capital gains encourage public market activity, contribute to liquidity, and keep America's financial system the best in the history of the world and the engine of innovation that it is. The staggered rate changes also extend the average holding period which keeps markets more stable further benefiting them   * Capital gains are (obviously) not income, and many times occur as a result of corporate earnings improving which would result in an increase in taxes paid by that corporation - therefore capital gains are borderline double taxation. In all cases where capital gains occur a subsequent incremental tax expense has likely already occurred.   * Capital gains taxes are disproportionately paid by higher income individuals who typically own these assets","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19515.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
+{"post_id":"78j7oe","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Capital Gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income I consider myself a libertarian and therefore am fiscally conservative. However, given the debates over the tax code overhaul, I truly believe we need to go back to the days of capital gains being treated the same as ordinary income.    This would generate more tax revenue than by eliminating the SALT deductions (state, local and property taxes).   I believe the SALT deductions are necessary because you shouldn't pay taxes on money spent paying other taxes.    I do live in one of the so called donor states so my federal taxes will go up under Trumps plan, but I've been in favor of changing the capital gains tax ever since I graduated college with an accounting degree back in 2008.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"doue05d","c_root_id_B":"douqmpb","created_at_utc_A":1508889457,"created_at_utc_B":1508904796,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Many studies have show that if you raise the capital gains tax rate, tax revenues actually decrease because people change their behavior.  It is good for the economy, and by extension, good for federal tax revenues to have people investing in business.  I remember when Obama was first running for president he was even asked why he'd want to raise the capital gains rate, given that it will actually hurt the government's tax revenues.  His only response was, \"because it's more fair.\"","human_ref_B":"Honestly, increasing capital gains taxes or (ideally) just counting capital gains as income for the purposes of income taxes only makes sense if we drop corporate taxes altogether. We have the highest nominal corporate tax rate in the world. No one pays the nominal tax rate because the tax code is riddled with exemptions and credits and discounts. Some companies have played that game so well that they pay nothing in taxes, and a handful get a net positive payment. Which is dumb.  More generally, corporate taxes are sold as a \"tax on the rich\" but that's not how it works. When companies are taxed they raise prices as much as they can so it isn't the company that pays the tax. No, I pay that tax. Yeah, the company sends in the check but I'm the one out the money. If the company can't raise prices because we collectively won't put up with that then it's the workers who are turned down for raises or don't get hired or might get laid off. If companies can get away with some 'belt tightening' to make their earnings numbers look better to investors then you bet your ass that belt is tightening.  It's only when neither of those things are possible, when prices are as high as they are going to go and the belt is as tight as it's going to get, when the person paying the tax is the shareholders of the company. But are all shareholders rich? Well, once upon a time they were, but now some of the biggest shareholders around are the funds that pay out retirement and pensions. So, you hit retirees and current workers as much as you hit rich folks.  So, what tax does generally hit rich folks? Capital gains. Why? Because it's on the other side of the equation. It's taxing rich people directly where they can't shift its responsibility to anyone else. So, why is the Capital Gains rates lower? Well, there are two reasons. First is to encourage investment, a gentle nudge towards putting money to use instead of gold-filled swimming pools. And that does work... sorta... during specific parts of the business cycle. The other reason is a fairness argument. So, you make a dollar by owning a business, shrewd planning and a not insignificant amount of design work pays off. Only that $1 you made gets taxed 35% when it leaves the company and gets hit *again* when it enters your hand? Possibly as much as another 35% if we're using income tax brackets. Well, fuck that. The Federal government gets a full 70 cents on the dollar? And then States sometimes get another 15% and occasionally a city asks for 10%. So now, fuck. I got a whole shiny nickel out of that dollar I made. While unfairness should happen to rich folk every so often there's a point beyond which it's just dumb.  We would be better off if we taxed capital gains as income dropped the corporate tax altogether to take the boot off of the dollar store shopper a bit and stop the whole \"double tax bonus\" crazy train. It should even out revenue wise over the long run. But, we'd come out big ahead if we were to do something crazy like issue more grants to businesses starting in economically depressed areas and gave tax breaks to start ups instead of to the biggest companies in the world for their second or third headquarters.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15339.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"78j7oe","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"CMV: Capital Gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income I consider myself a libertarian and therefore am fiscally conservative. However, given the debates over the tax code overhaul, I truly believe we need to go back to the days of capital gains being treated the same as ordinary income.    This would generate more tax revenue than by eliminating the SALT deductions (state, local and property taxes).   I believe the SALT deductions are necessary because you shouldn't pay taxes on money spent paying other taxes.    I do live in one of the so called donor states so my federal taxes will go up under Trumps plan, but I've been in favor of changing the capital gains tax ever since I graduated college with an accounting degree back in 2008.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"douqmpb","c_root_id_B":"doufnut","created_at_utc_A":1508904796,"created_at_utc_B":1508891335,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Honestly, increasing capital gains taxes or (ideally) just counting capital gains as income for the purposes of income taxes only makes sense if we drop corporate taxes altogether. We have the highest nominal corporate tax rate in the world. No one pays the nominal tax rate because the tax code is riddled with exemptions and credits and discounts. Some companies have played that game so well that they pay nothing in taxes, and a handful get a net positive payment. Which is dumb.  More generally, corporate taxes are sold as a \"tax on the rich\" but that's not how it works. When companies are taxed they raise prices as much as they can so it isn't the company that pays the tax. No, I pay that tax. Yeah, the company sends in the check but I'm the one out the money. If the company can't raise prices because we collectively won't put up with that then it's the workers who are turned down for raises or don't get hired or might get laid off. If companies can get away with some 'belt tightening' to make their earnings numbers look better to investors then you bet your ass that belt is tightening.  It's only when neither of those things are possible, when prices are as high as they are going to go and the belt is as tight as it's going to get, when the person paying the tax is the shareholders of the company. But are all shareholders rich? Well, once upon a time they were, but now some of the biggest shareholders around are the funds that pay out retirement and pensions. So, you hit retirees and current workers as much as you hit rich folks.  So, what tax does generally hit rich folks? Capital gains. Why? Because it's on the other side of the equation. It's taxing rich people directly where they can't shift its responsibility to anyone else. So, why is the Capital Gains rates lower? Well, there are two reasons. First is to encourage investment, a gentle nudge towards putting money to use instead of gold-filled swimming pools. And that does work... sorta... during specific parts of the business cycle. The other reason is a fairness argument. So, you make a dollar by owning a business, shrewd planning and a not insignificant amount of design work pays off. Only that $1 you made gets taxed 35% when it leaves the company and gets hit *again* when it enters your hand? Possibly as much as another 35% if we're using income tax brackets. Well, fuck that. The Federal government gets a full 70 cents on the dollar? And then States sometimes get another 15% and occasionally a city asks for 10%. So now, fuck. I got a whole shiny nickel out of that dollar I made. While unfairness should happen to rich folk every so often there's a point beyond which it's just dumb.  We would be better off if we taxed capital gains as income dropped the corporate tax altogether to take the boot off of the dollar store shopper a bit and stop the whole \"double tax bonus\" crazy train. It should even out revenue wise over the long run. But, we'd come out big ahead if we were to do something crazy like issue more grants to businesses starting in economically depressed areas and gave tax breaks to start ups instead of to the biggest companies in the world for their second or third headquarters.","human_ref_B":"Short term CG is taxed as regular income.  Long term CG is what is taxed minimally. I'd honestly like to see those reversed. Taxing long term capital gains lightly is regressive and vastly favours the wealthy,  while short term capital gain has stimulated the economy recently and is also common in the middle class.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13461.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"7bonyn","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: The biggest issue with the US political system is that it's a 2 party system. Now I say this not because I don't think that the EC isn't an issue or that all of the additional funding that is thrown out by \"donors\" for political sway isn't something that is toxic to the system as a whole, because both of these things do cause problems and are harmful. But as someone who is from the outside (Canada) looking in, the biggest thing that sticks out to me as a issue is the fact that 3rd party's do not exist in the US for all intensive purposes.  From where I sit, I see the lack of \"choice\" (for lack of a better term) in the US political system, as a major negative and a large reason for the right skew in the last 20 or 30 years. There seems to be a large section of the population in the US that literally has no option to vote for if they want to vote for something that actually aligns with their views and what they actually want.   I also see it as a problem because it consolidates the power too much and doesn't allow the people to actually make changes unless they have all of the power, there is no negotiation with 3rd parties to find a balance, there is no chance for people with different views to actually have discourse. You either agree, or disagree, there is no middle ground and because of that it causes massive polarization issues that we are currently experiencing.   So, CMV, let's see if I cant be swayed one way or another, because currently I feel like my view is possibly closed minded and there are things I just haven't thought of before.  _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dpjlo5g","c_root_id_B":"dpjllws","created_at_utc_A":1510178242,"created_at_utc_B":1510178174,"score_A":13,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"While I don't disagree with you per se, I would argue that the 2 party system in the US isn't actually the problem - it is _symptom_ of two larger issues with our democracy:  first past the post voting and gerrymandering:  - First past the post voting is a system where whomever gets the most votes wins.  In a multi party system, this can often lead to the spoiler effect, where by voting for the candidate you like you actually help the candidate you like the _least_ get elected. For example, lets say we have the Yellow Party, the Red Party and the Green Party.  People in the Red Party like their guy and will only vote for him, but people in the Yellow and Green parties like their guy the best, but would be ok voting for the other guy if they had to.  Election results come in and it is 40% Red, 35% Yellow and 25% Green - Red party wins!  It doesn't take long for Green party voters to start voting Yellow in order to at least ensure that the Red guy doesn't get in.  Alternative voting models like ranked choice or instant run off can help solve this issue  - Gerrymandering is the system were the elected leaders are the ones who draw the district boundaries in such a way as to create districts that favor them.  You can do this by packing (forcing everyone who disagrees with you into a single district) or cracking (splitting a district up so as to break up voting blocks).  As this picture shows how you draw the districts matters and I can basically ensure the outcome of an election based on how I choose to draw the districts.  Combine both of these elements and what you end up with is a strong two party system where the party affiliation of a given area rarely changes.  Those are the issues we need to solve - solve them and we will see a much more representative democracy.","human_ref_B":"All republican (as in not a monarchy) political systems are two party systems, the majority and the minority.  In a system like the american, the coalitions form before the election into two large umbrella parties.  In most parliamentary systems, the coalitions form after the election.  In the long run, though, the outcomes are the same.  If the US had an electoral system that encouraged multiple parties, after every election, you'd get a right-coalition of the social cons, the libertarians, and the business cons, and on the left you'd get a coalition of greens, socialist, social democrats.  The coalitions would look almost exactly like the current democratic and republican parties.   Nothing meaningful would change.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":68.0,"score_ratio":2.6}
+{"post_id":"xxvxoh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: People shouldn\u2019t ever celebrate vigilante justice I think that the internet has a problem with people disrespecting systems that are in place to enact justice, and immorally applauding vigilante justice. Every time a post is made on social media about someone, for example, killing the alleged murderer or rapist of their loved ones the comments are cheering on their vigilante justice and I think this is a problem.   To be clear, I\u2019m not saying that the revenge was or wasn\u2019t deserved in any particular case. My reasons to believe that vigilante justice shouldn\u2019t ever be celebrated are as follows:  I believe that crimes are equal in immorality regardless of the relationship between perpetrator and victim. The murder of a rapist or a murderer shouldn\u2019t be judged any less severely than that of, say, an innocent child.  While I do believe that rehabilitation is one of the purposes of punitive systems, their primary purpose is, and should be, punishment. This point is made to address comments like  *\u201c\u2018\"\\[...\\] got off with only 5 years probation.\u2019 The judge believed that sending Gary to jail would benefit no one and he was unlikely to commit another crime. The judge was right too, he didn't hurt anyone after this.\u201d*  I don\u2019t think that whether someone will or won\u2019t commit crime again is the only factor that should go into consideration when deciding their punishment. Regardless of their motivations, one who has access to a government that enforces the law, and rather than relying on those systems chooses to kill another person, is a murderer like any other.  Any form of vigilante justice undermines the judicial systems already in place. If you wish to be protected by the law, then it is up to the law, and not you, to decide who is and isn\u2019t guilty and how they should be prosecuted.  Internet comments on topics like this are often emotionally driven, with little thought put into them, but that doesn\u2019t change the fact that support of vigilante justice is often the prevailing sentiment, and that that is harmful. Vigilante justice undermines the foundation of the sound and reasonably reliable judicial systems of the developed world. It can very easily lead to the death of innocent people, and even if only the guilty are killed, that can hardly be called justice. I can empathize with how an emotionally driven immediate response may be supporting a person taking revenge on the alleged perpetrator of an egregious act on them or their loved ones, but such support is inevitably supporting murderers and other criminals who are hardly better than the people they seek revenge on.","c_root_id_A":"irecx3o","c_root_id_B":"irea9tz","created_at_utc_A":1665146786,"created_at_utc_B":1665145242,"score_A":12,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"> The murder of a rapist or a murderer shouldn\u2019t be judged any less severely than that of, say, an innocent child.  yeah.... this ain't it.","human_ref_B":">I believe that crimes are equal in immorality regardless of the relationship between perpetrator and victim. The murder of a rapist or a murderer shouldn\u2019t be judged any less severely that that of, say, an innocent child.  I think this is the weakest part of your view. It would appear to be some form of moral absolutism  wherein all crimes of like kind are equally immoral.  We\u2019ll ignore that not all crimes are necessarily immoral because your view is that like is equal to like (I.e., murder is equal to murder, not murder is equal to patent-infringement).  However, if there is some situation where you would view two like crimes as morally different, then you would have to change your view. At least in part.  A quick example would be a father walking in on his child being raped and beating the rapist to death. Is that morally equal to someone walking in a grocery store, getting upset with someone else\u2019s crying child and bludgeoning them to death with a can of tomatoes? In both cases it could be argued that the initial emotional strain led to the violent outburst, but are they truly both equally immoral actions? If you view them as different, then I think you need to change your view.  Even if you don\u2019t believe the crimes are morally different, the state does. Since your argument also rests, in part, on the state reliably determining the morality of crimes, then you\u2019d have to concede that not all crimes of like kind are equally immoral. In the previous example, the state would absolutely bring one party up on a homicide charge while the other would face manslaughter at most, and possibly no charges at all.   Both people killed another person, but the state has determined the immorality of the actions are not the same. Either you agree with that logic, and thus you need to change your view to accept that not all like crimes are equally immoral, or you disagree with that logic, but then you need to change your view to acknowledge the state often fails to equally dispense justice based on the morality of the crime.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1544.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"xxvxoh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: People shouldn\u2019t ever celebrate vigilante justice I think that the internet has a problem with people disrespecting systems that are in place to enact justice, and immorally applauding vigilante justice. Every time a post is made on social media about someone, for example, killing the alleged murderer or rapist of their loved ones the comments are cheering on their vigilante justice and I think this is a problem.   To be clear, I\u2019m not saying that the revenge was or wasn\u2019t deserved in any particular case. My reasons to believe that vigilante justice shouldn\u2019t ever be celebrated are as follows:  I believe that crimes are equal in immorality regardless of the relationship between perpetrator and victim. The murder of a rapist or a murderer shouldn\u2019t be judged any less severely than that of, say, an innocent child.  While I do believe that rehabilitation is one of the purposes of punitive systems, their primary purpose is, and should be, punishment. This point is made to address comments like  *\u201c\u2018\"\\[...\\] got off with only 5 years probation.\u2019 The judge believed that sending Gary to jail would benefit no one and he was unlikely to commit another crime. The judge was right too, he didn't hurt anyone after this.\u201d*  I don\u2019t think that whether someone will or won\u2019t commit crime again is the only factor that should go into consideration when deciding their punishment. Regardless of their motivations, one who has access to a government that enforces the law, and rather than relying on those systems chooses to kill another person, is a murderer like any other.  Any form of vigilante justice undermines the judicial systems already in place. If you wish to be protected by the law, then it is up to the law, and not you, to decide who is and isn\u2019t guilty and how they should be prosecuted.  Internet comments on topics like this are often emotionally driven, with little thought put into them, but that doesn\u2019t change the fact that support of vigilante justice is often the prevailing sentiment, and that that is harmful. Vigilante justice undermines the foundation of the sound and reasonably reliable judicial systems of the developed world. It can very easily lead to the death of innocent people, and even if only the guilty are killed, that can hardly be called justice. I can empathize with how an emotionally driven immediate response may be supporting a person taking revenge on the alleged perpetrator of an egregious act on them or their loved ones, but such support is inevitably supporting murderers and other criminals who are hardly better than the people they seek revenge on.","c_root_id_A":"ire8eyo","c_root_id_B":"irecx3o","created_at_utc_A":1665144067,"created_at_utc_B":1665146786,"score_A":8,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"You literally had the argument \"law=morality\". How can you make the argument that all murders are equal simply because they're murder?","human_ref_B":"> The murder of a rapist or a murderer shouldn\u2019t be judged any less severely than that of, say, an innocent child.  yeah.... this ain't it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2719.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"xxvxoh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: People shouldn\u2019t ever celebrate vigilante justice I think that the internet has a problem with people disrespecting systems that are in place to enact justice, and immorally applauding vigilante justice. Every time a post is made on social media about someone, for example, killing the alleged murderer or rapist of their loved ones the comments are cheering on their vigilante justice and I think this is a problem.   To be clear, I\u2019m not saying that the revenge was or wasn\u2019t deserved in any particular case. My reasons to believe that vigilante justice shouldn\u2019t ever be celebrated are as follows:  I believe that crimes are equal in immorality regardless of the relationship between perpetrator and victim. The murder of a rapist or a murderer shouldn\u2019t be judged any less severely than that of, say, an innocent child.  While I do believe that rehabilitation is one of the purposes of punitive systems, their primary purpose is, and should be, punishment. This point is made to address comments like  *\u201c\u2018\"\\[...\\] got off with only 5 years probation.\u2019 The judge believed that sending Gary to jail would benefit no one and he was unlikely to commit another crime. The judge was right too, he didn't hurt anyone after this.\u201d*  I don\u2019t think that whether someone will or won\u2019t commit crime again is the only factor that should go into consideration when deciding their punishment. Regardless of their motivations, one who has access to a government that enforces the law, and rather than relying on those systems chooses to kill another person, is a murderer like any other.  Any form of vigilante justice undermines the judicial systems already in place. If you wish to be protected by the law, then it is up to the law, and not you, to decide who is and isn\u2019t guilty and how they should be prosecuted.  Internet comments on topics like this are often emotionally driven, with little thought put into them, but that doesn\u2019t change the fact that support of vigilante justice is often the prevailing sentiment, and that that is harmful. Vigilante justice undermines the foundation of the sound and reasonably reliable judicial systems of the developed world. It can very easily lead to the death of innocent people, and even if only the guilty are killed, that can hardly be called justice. I can empathize with how an emotionally driven immediate response may be supporting a person taking revenge on the alleged perpetrator of an egregious act on them or their loved ones, but such support is inevitably supporting murderers and other criminals who are hardly better than the people they seek revenge on.","c_root_id_A":"irecrgb","c_root_id_B":"irecx3o","created_at_utc_A":1665146702,"created_at_utc_B":1665146786,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"That's all well and good in a liberal democracy but what about vigilante justice in an autocratic regime. Say the local government thugs rape a girl in your neighborhood. Should you rise up and enact justice as a community or should you let it be?","human_ref_B":"> The murder of a rapist or a murderer shouldn\u2019t be judged any less severely than that of, say, an innocent child.  yeah.... this ain't it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":84.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"xxvxoh","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: People shouldn\u2019t ever celebrate vigilante justice I think that the internet has a problem with people disrespecting systems that are in place to enact justice, and immorally applauding vigilante justice. Every time a post is made on social media about someone, for example, killing the alleged murderer or rapist of their loved ones the comments are cheering on their vigilante justice and I think this is a problem.   To be clear, I\u2019m not saying that the revenge was or wasn\u2019t deserved in any particular case. My reasons to believe that vigilante justice shouldn\u2019t ever be celebrated are as follows:  I believe that crimes are equal in immorality regardless of the relationship between perpetrator and victim. The murder of a rapist or a murderer shouldn\u2019t be judged any less severely than that of, say, an innocent child.  While I do believe that rehabilitation is one of the purposes of punitive systems, their primary purpose is, and should be, punishment. This point is made to address comments like  *\u201c\u2018\"\\[...\\] got off with only 5 years probation.\u2019 The judge believed that sending Gary to jail would benefit no one and he was unlikely to commit another crime. The judge was right too, he didn't hurt anyone after this.\u201d*  I don\u2019t think that whether someone will or won\u2019t commit crime again is the only factor that should go into consideration when deciding their punishment. Regardless of their motivations, one who has access to a government that enforces the law, and rather than relying on those systems chooses to kill another person, is a murderer like any other.  Any form of vigilante justice undermines the judicial systems already in place. If you wish to be protected by the law, then it is up to the law, and not you, to decide who is and isn\u2019t guilty and how they should be prosecuted.  Internet comments on topics like this are often emotionally driven, with little thought put into them, but that doesn\u2019t change the fact that support of vigilante justice is often the prevailing sentiment, and that that is harmful. Vigilante justice undermines the foundation of the sound and reasonably reliable judicial systems of the developed world. It can very easily lead to the death of innocent people, and even if only the guilty are killed, that can hardly be called justice. I can empathize with how an emotionally driven immediate response may be supporting a person taking revenge on the alleged perpetrator of an egregious act on them or their loved ones, but such support is inevitably supporting murderers and other criminals who are hardly better than the people they seek revenge on.","c_root_id_A":"ire8eyo","c_root_id_B":"irea9tz","created_at_utc_A":1665144067,"created_at_utc_B":1665145242,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"You literally had the argument \"law=morality\". How can you make the argument that all murders are equal simply because they're murder?","human_ref_B":">I believe that crimes are equal in immorality regardless of the relationship between perpetrator and victim. The murder of a rapist or a murderer shouldn\u2019t be judged any less severely that that of, say, an innocent child.  I think this is the weakest part of your view. It would appear to be some form of moral absolutism  wherein all crimes of like kind are equally immoral.  We\u2019ll ignore that not all crimes are necessarily immoral because your view is that like is equal to like (I.e., murder is equal to murder, not murder is equal to patent-infringement).  However, if there is some situation where you would view two like crimes as morally different, then you would have to change your view. At least in part.  A quick example would be a father walking in on his child being raped and beating the rapist to death. Is that morally equal to someone walking in a grocery store, getting upset with someone else\u2019s crying child and bludgeoning them to death with a can of tomatoes? In both cases it could be argued that the initial emotional strain led to the violent outburst, but are they truly both equally immoral actions? If you view them as different, then I think you need to change your view.  Even if you don\u2019t believe the crimes are morally different, the state does. Since your argument also rests, in part, on the state reliably determining the morality of crimes, then you\u2019d have to concede that not all crimes of like kind are equally immoral. In the previous example, the state would absolutely bring one party up on a homicide charge while the other would face manslaughter at most, and possibly no charges at all.   Both people killed another person, but the state has determined the immorality of the actions are not the same. Either you agree with that logic, and thus you need to change your view to accept that not all like crimes are equally immoral, or you disagree with that logic, but then you need to change your view to acknowledge the state often fails to equally dispense justice based on the morality of the crime.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1175.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"b3si2w","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: A non-black person having an afro is not cultural appropriation as a haircut is not culturally exclusive I should preface by saying I would just like to objectively understand the other sides arguments.   Recently i was told that by impersonating someone like Bob Ross with an afro, that this is would be cultural appropriation and thus insensitive towards African American. I don't believe this is true because A. He is not African American (the perceived targeted race), B. An afro - or any hair style - should not be intrinsic and exclusive to one single race. This was a hairstyle that was largely prominent in the 70s and 80s. As well, and most importantly, most people regardless of race can physically grow an afro if they grow their hair long enough. I know I can and I'm not black. Should I be frowned upon for growing my hair long naturally, or cosplaying as someone who themselves looks a certain way with no intention of misappropriation and insensitivity towards a particular group?  Thanks","c_root_id_A":"ej1uxv6","c_root_id_B":"ej20cdh","created_at_utc_A":1553187047,"created_at_utc_B":1553190315,"score_A":5,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Other people definitely have curly hair. But the question is, why call it an Afro if you are not specifically making reference to African Americans or people of African heritage.","human_ref_B":"Not my argument, but I can try to parrot something back to you.   &#x200B;  1) Since the 1960s (and even before then) African-Americans have been penalized for their manner of dress - be it their hair, their nails, their shirts or whatever. Black people have lost jobs, people have lost promotions, due to having \"wrong dress\".   &#x200B;  2) In the modern era, white people can now wear those same manners of dress - without penalty.   &#x200B;  3) Being penalized for something, for 60+ years, and then for someone else to do the same thing you did, and receive no penalty - feels wrong somehow.   &#x200B;  You could argue whether the word which best describes this is cultural appropriation or not - I would personally use the term double standard - but do you at least see what some people are mad about?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3268.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
+{"post_id":"5c0iru","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump is going to plunge our country, and the world, into ruin. It is a very dark day for America, as well as the rest of the world. While I don't really care about Roe v. Wade or gay marriage, although I do support both of them, the fact remains that climate change efforts and affordable healthcare are going out the window.  In addition, the reason the U.S. Is so successful is because it had European allies. We've lost those, and now it is us, Russia, and China against the world. Nuclear war is very much possible. And don't forget, our Vice President-elect is a young earth creationist! We can say goodbye to science education!  So, yes, I think that Donald Trump's election is going to be the beginning of the end in the stability of the world. I WANT my view to be changed.   _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d9sp95o","c_root_id_B":"d9spga9","created_at_utc_A":1478692028,"created_at_utc_B":1478692513,"score_A":320,"score_B":524,"human_ref_A":"There is only one thing I have to offer, a President alone doesn't have too much power to change anything.  We've seen that with Obama, now you may say \"Of course, Obama had a republican Congress working against him, Trump won't have that\".  To which I'd reply, not so fast. Would you be as glum, as pessimistic if this were not Trump but any other run-of-the-mill Republican? Congress will ensure that the actual laws drafted and actions made are closer to Ted Cruz\/Jeb Bush than Campaign!Trump. Is that all good? Not really but it's not world-ending either.","human_ref_B":"I think you're overlooking the fact that around 45%-47% of americans didn't want this to happen. No matter how many people actually do decide to move to Canada, the majority of them are going to stay, and it's doubtful that their opinions are going to change.  That means that any changes that Donald Trump wants to enact are going to come up against scrutiny and opposition. Sure the majority of people support him, but a minority is not necessarily equivalent to a small number.  Yes he's the president, possibly the most powerful position on the world, but that doesn't mean ultimate power. Any steps he decides to take can be overturned by not only democrats, but also republicans. Not every republican agrees on what is right and wrong.  Something I recently found out is that even presidential executive orders can be blocked, and though nuclear missiles might be harder to block, that's a very outside chance. I doubt Trump would want to fire them because all of his nice stuff is in America, he's the last person on earth that wants to see it destroyed by enemies.  So sure, things might take a turn for the worse. Hate crimes will go up, poverty will go up, the economy has already dropped. But don't discount all of those people who voted against him. They're still there. They might be quiet for a little while, but as soon as anything else huge starts to be decided, they will all have something to rally against, and that might just be enough.  Edit: I don't know if this is conventional or even allowed on CMV, but I'm still getting messages so I thought I'd clarify.  I wrote this before all of the votes had come in. The 45%-47% was a guess at the time based on the electoral colleges, I know Hillary won the popular vote and it's closer to 52% didn't vote for him now. I'm not changing it, this is just an acknowledgement that I know the proper numbers.  Also, when I had written it, the economy had dropped. It appears to have recovered now, but again I'm leaving it in. If anything it proves my point that the world is probably gonna be fine.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":485.0,"score_ratio":1.6375}
+{"post_id":"5c0iru","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump is going to plunge our country, and the world, into ruin. It is a very dark day for America, as well as the rest of the world. While I don't really care about Roe v. Wade or gay marriage, although I do support both of them, the fact remains that climate change efforts and affordable healthcare are going out the window.  In addition, the reason the U.S. Is so successful is because it had European allies. We've lost those, and now it is us, Russia, and China against the world. Nuclear war is very much possible. And don't forget, our Vice President-elect is a young earth creationist! We can say goodbye to science education!  So, yes, I think that Donald Trump's election is going to be the beginning of the end in the stability of the world. I WANT my view to be changed.   _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d9spga9","c_root_id_B":"d9spa1t","created_at_utc_A":1478692513,"created_at_utc_B":1478692090,"score_A":524,"score_B":214,"human_ref_A":"I think you're overlooking the fact that around 45%-47% of americans didn't want this to happen. No matter how many people actually do decide to move to Canada, the majority of them are going to stay, and it's doubtful that their opinions are going to change.  That means that any changes that Donald Trump wants to enact are going to come up against scrutiny and opposition. Sure the majority of people support him, but a minority is not necessarily equivalent to a small number.  Yes he's the president, possibly the most powerful position on the world, but that doesn't mean ultimate power. Any steps he decides to take can be overturned by not only democrats, but also republicans. Not every republican agrees on what is right and wrong.  Something I recently found out is that even presidential executive orders can be blocked, and though nuclear missiles might be harder to block, that's a very outside chance. I doubt Trump would want to fire them because all of his nice stuff is in America, he's the last person on earth that wants to see it destroyed by enemies.  So sure, things might take a turn for the worse. Hate crimes will go up, poverty will go up, the economy has already dropped. But don't discount all of those people who voted against him. They're still there. They might be quiet for a little while, but as soon as anything else huge starts to be decided, they will all have something to rally against, and that might just be enough.  Edit: I don't know if this is conventional or even allowed on CMV, but I'm still getting messages so I thought I'd clarify.  I wrote this before all of the votes had come in. The 45%-47% was a guess at the time based on the electoral colleges, I know Hillary won the popular vote and it's closer to 52% didn't vote for him now. I'm not changing it, this is just an acknowledgement that I know the proper numbers.  Also, when I had written it, the economy had dropped. It appears to have recovered now, but again I'm leaving it in. If anything it proves my point that the world is probably gonna be fine.","human_ref_B":"I am not sure a changing alliance means that nuclear deterrence isn't still valid. Even if the winners of the electoral college had no semblance of policy, they still have an idea of what nuclear weapons will do. So, I don't think any major wars will happen.  On the climate change issue, it is not entirely certain that this election was the one that will have done it. Certainly it sets the world back, by A LOT, but some scientists say the climate reached the point of no return earlier this year, when self-propagating effects such as the permafrost melting to release more greenhouse gases started in earnest.   So, I don't think the first will happen, even WITH Trump, and I don't think his election will have caused the second.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":423.0,"score_ratio":2.4485981308}
+{"post_id":"5c0iru","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump is going to plunge our country, and the world, into ruin. It is a very dark day for America, as well as the rest of the world. While I don't really care about Roe v. Wade or gay marriage, although I do support both of them, the fact remains that climate change efforts and affordable healthcare are going out the window.  In addition, the reason the U.S. Is so successful is because it had European allies. We've lost those, and now it is us, Russia, and China against the world. Nuclear war is very much possible. And don't forget, our Vice President-elect is a young earth creationist! We can say goodbye to science education!  So, yes, I think that Donald Trump's election is going to be the beginning of the end in the stability of the world. I WANT my view to be changed.   _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d9stt05","c_root_id_B":"d9su2o9","created_at_utc_A":1478701037,"created_at_utc_B":1478701450,"score_A":103,"score_B":127,"human_ref_A":"People were saying the same thing when George Bush Jr won.   It seems the country goes through cycles - Democratic president - Republican president - Democratic president - Republican president.   The time will inevitably come when people are disappointed that Trump didn't save them. Then you will have your Democratic president again.   The world will not collapse due to one man\/woman.","human_ref_B":"I've said this for a while now that the democratic party's relationship with russia was too adversarial. Putin is already reaching out, saying he's ready to repair that relationship. I know many hate Trump, but he just may be what stops the proxy war with Russia in the Ukraine and Syria.   I see that as far more promising than continuing to butt heads with them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":413.0,"score_ratio":1.2330097087}
+{"post_id":"5c0iru","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump is going to plunge our country, and the world, into ruin. It is a very dark day for America, as well as the rest of the world. While I don't really care about Roe v. Wade or gay marriage, although I do support both of them, the fact remains that climate change efforts and affordable healthcare are going out the window.  In addition, the reason the U.S. Is so successful is because it had European allies. We've lost those, and now it is us, Russia, and China against the world. Nuclear war is very much possible. And don't forget, our Vice President-elect is a young earth creationist! We can say goodbye to science education!  So, yes, I think that Donald Trump's election is going to be the beginning of the end in the stability of the world. I WANT my view to be changed.   _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d9stu5g","c_root_id_B":"d9su2o9","created_at_utc_A":1478701085,"created_at_utc_B":1478701450,"score_A":96,"score_B":127,"human_ref_A":"First of all, most people overestimate how much power the president actually has. We don't live in a dictatorship. The whole system of government is in place for a reason.   Second of all, we have survived Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, W, and Obama. We'll be fine.","human_ref_B":"I've said this for a while now that the democratic party's relationship with russia was too adversarial. Putin is already reaching out, saying he's ready to repair that relationship. I know many hate Trump, but he just may be what stops the proxy war with Russia in the Ukraine and Syria.   I see that as far more promising than continuing to butt heads with them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":365.0,"score_ratio":1.3229166667}
+{"post_id":"5c0iru","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump is going to plunge our country, and the world, into ruin. It is a very dark day for America, as well as the rest of the world. While I don't really care about Roe v. Wade or gay marriage, although I do support both of them, the fact remains that climate change efforts and affordable healthcare are going out the window.  In addition, the reason the U.S. Is so successful is because it had European allies. We've lost those, and now it is us, Russia, and China against the world. Nuclear war is very much possible. And don't forget, our Vice President-elect is a young earth creationist! We can say goodbye to science education!  So, yes, I think that Donald Trump's election is going to be the beginning of the end in the stability of the world. I WANT my view to be changed.   _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d9su2o9","c_root_id_B":"d9stx08","created_at_utc_A":1478701450,"created_at_utc_B":1478701210,"score_A":127,"score_B":70,"human_ref_A":"I've said this for a while now that the democratic party's relationship with russia was too adversarial. Putin is already reaching out, saying he's ready to repair that relationship. I know many hate Trump, but he just may be what stops the proxy war with Russia in the Ukraine and Syria.   I see that as far more promising than continuing to butt heads with them.","human_ref_B":"No, it won't be Donald Trump directly who causes ruin, *but*.  I really like what user\/MikeCFord said about the POTUS being one of the most powerful positions in the world but that doesn't mean ultimate power, which is a helpful way to frame his presidency in the long term. Also, at the end of the day, I think Trump's nihilism (his small temperamental fingers hovering over the nuclear codes or the rhetorical diarrhea that gushes forth from his butthole of a mouth) is somewhat kept in check by his own narcissism and self-preservation. It's true, deep down in his molten orange core, Trump doesn't want the world to go to shit because he has too much to lose as a global one-percenter, and he has too much pride and vanity staked out on the reputation of his children (perhaps the only other humans genuinely a part of Trump's, let's say, very limited circle of empathy). After all, sad little men only survive by filling the bottomless blackhole in their hearts with approval and attention.   That being said, I think the most disturbing thing about Trump is that he has just set a precedent to end all precedent: a Yankee civilian carpetbagger with a borderline-retarded Twitter account successfully \"out-media'd\" one of the most qualified Washington insiders in American history. Who would have known that running as a cartoon Monopoly man, who plays it fast and loose and loud, would make you the most *telegenic* presidential candidate of all time? Who could have known Trump's special brand of newspeak--littered with numbing repetition, tangents, nostalgia, qualifiers, hedging, bombast, buzzwords, fifth-grade vocabulary, thought-terminating cliches, gas lighting, shock value, alpha-bullying, kill-shots, punchlines, signposts (Well, some say, so, seriously, very, okay!), obsession with plot, and over-the-top chironomia--would make him infinitely more soundbyte-able and digestable to a hoi polloi conditioned to eat up advertisement? Who knew that simple platitudes and a vague platform could make you the perfect anti-politician, where a vote for Trump is a lottery ticket that gives the average disenfranchised blue-collar American their right to fantasize about all the ways Trump will deliver the American Dream to them? Who knew all the echo chambers of political correctness would act as white noise, distorting the heightened contradictions of this election cycle and enable an electorate to--*really*, *surreally*, *hyperreally*--let a reality-TV mogul bear more responsibility than almost anyone in the history of human civilization?  Maybe Trump knew. Michael Moore and Scott Adams certainly did. Maybe they knew running for POTUS in a society that rewards blowhard shameless confidence with unlimited social capital and an online media landscape where money buys you freedom of speech (at $5 a vote), means power is only a function of persuasion.  This is textbook banality of evil (when a telegenic candidate trumps a qualified one)... so this is why I think you're wrong. This last year of Trump was more American Idol than American democracy. And *we ate it up*. We loved watching and hate-watching him.   So, it won't be Trump that sends America into ruin but Americans themselves. #blackmirror  Edit: Changed some language and added some links.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":240.0,"score_ratio":1.8142857143}
+{"post_id":"5d3yrl","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump's plan to bring back well paying factory jobs will not work. This one just seems almost obvious from a logistical point of view. Trump claims that he can bring back low skilled and well paying manufacturing jobs to a level that hasn't been seen in years, but there's a reason the industry isn't like that. If factories are forced to come back, rather than give low skilled workers middle class jobs,  it seems more likely that the jobs will be automated with the only jobs going to more highly skilled workers to maintain the machines. On top of that, it's clear that producing with low paid overseas workers is cheaper,  so in all reality we'll see no real job growth in the populations it's been promised to, and prices of goods will likely increase. This is just my take and I'm open to listen so Change My View!","c_root_id_A":"da1s8y2","c_root_id_B":"da27n1h","created_at_utc_A":1479243460,"created_at_utc_B":1479263749,"score_A":16,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"The plan isn't to make old factories come back. They left for a reason. Even despite that the United States is number two in global exports. The United States gets more factory work by supporting new start-ups in manufacturing sectors.  Automating only makes sense in some circumstances. It's not an obvious choice in all situations. There are market niches that benefit from less automation and there are more than a few that tend to suffer when a shift if made in either direction. It's only when too many demands are place on businesses or there is undeniable productivity gains that benefit consumers that it makes sense to automate.  Overseas workers are getting a lot more expensive. There are two billion fewer people in poverty now than there used to be. Many economies that were barely avoiding starvation in the 1970's are major global players with their own multi-billion dollar companies that are now competing with western multinationals for employees. In the past two decades a number of companies have \"on shored\" or built their new factories in the US, Canada, or Mexico because the labor savings aren't enough to cover the hidden costs such as China's insistence that they get all the trade secrets and do nothing when those secrets find their way into Chinese products and knockoffs. Being overseas is simply more expensive than it used to be, which makes doing business in the US more attractive than it was in the 90's and early 00's.","human_ref_B":"> On top of that, it's clear that producing with low paid overseas workers is cheaper, so in all reality we'll see no real job growth in the populations it's been promised to, and prices of goods will likely increase.   He's already threatened tariffs to account for this. It's no longer cheaper if the tariff is high enough to bring the goods back in to sell.  I think you're right over the long term. It's a losing battle and I'm not sure there's any way to justify the rising cost of the American worker with the decreasing cost of automation.  One might argue he doesn't actually need to solve the problem--all he needs is some evidence to suggest the policies are helping. If, in four years, he can point to a dozen or so factories that got moved back or cancelled relocating, and can point to statistics somewhere showing positive results, that might be enough.  On a practical level, it's quite possible that four years isn't long enough for automation to be implemented enough to phase out any short-term gains in blue collar jobs, and if that's the case, it's entirely feasible for his plan to \"work.\" Eight years is probably pushing it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20289.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"eousq7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: American driver education is woefully inadequate, and creates dangerous conditions for the general public First, some statistics. These come from the NHTSA for the year 2017. I'm using 2017 because it's the most recent batch of stats I can find published. In 2017, there were approximately 6,452,000 crashes reported to the Police, which resulted in 2,746,000 injuries. 34,247 crashes were fatal, which resulted in 37,133 deaths. Of the fatal crashes, only 13,416 involved collision with another moving vehicle, or 39.2%. The rest were either collisions with other objects or non-collision events (e.g. turning too sharply and rolling the vehicle).  Source: https:\/\/crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov\/Api\/Public\/ViewPublication\/812806   American driving education is a joke. It mostly focuses on reading and abiding by assorted traffic signs. It's a relatively short course. It culminates in a written test and a short bit of driving that requires the most basic of operation to drive and park. After that, there's typically a period where you hold a learner's permit and adult supervision in required, and after that you're fully licensed and free to drive. It's quite easy and you'd have to be some kind of moron to be unable to pass it. I do not feel like it adequately prepares drivers before putting them onto the road. Presumably the intent is that it's best for people to learn while actually driving, but the problem is people don't. Many people are ill-equipped to handle aggressive urban traffic. Some are even incompetent when it comes to basic navigation. I'm not even talking older people who used to be able to drive and are losing it, I'm talking about younger people that simply aren't cognitively nimble when it comes to operating a vehicle, and I blame their driving instruction.  The common retort is that many parts of the US are unfeasible to live without a car and license, largely because of how spaced out everything is, coupled with inadequate public transportation. I am 100% on board with expanding public transit. I wish more American cities had capable train networks. I once visited Washington DC and the subway system was fantastic. I didn't have a rental car and didn't need one. That's not really relevant, because I don't think driving is difficult enough that normal people can't pass a harder test if they are properly instructed. People who are handicapped might not, but they shouldn't be driving anyway. For normal people, I don't see any reason they can't get good at driving with proper instruction.   Also, it's not just about driving technique and operation. I expect a huge part is about vehicle maintenance. Of the numbers that I posted, the part I think is the most eye-opening is that stat about what people hit, and that most collisions are NOT with a moving vehicle. Now certainly alcohol is responsible for part of that (29% of fatal crashes). Certainly texting and other distractions are responsible for many others. However, I would venture that improper maintenance makes up some of that. It is hugely important to have tires that are appropriate for the season\/climate, and with an adequate amount of tread. It is also hugely important to have brakes that can stop your car quickly and efficiently. If you car has an airbag recall, it's critical that the airbags are serviced in accordance with the recall. I had a car with an airbag recall, and a few years later I used the airbag in a frontal collision. I was relieved to get a big poofy bag of air instead of a bunch of plastic shrapnel. Vehicle safety measures are important. Yet, most of the country doesn't even have safety inspections; it's mostly just most of the east coast (from North Carolina to Maine), Texas, Louisiana, and Missouri. In all the other states, there is none. That means people can drive with bald tires and other assorted defects and no one is likely to stop them until they get pulled over for something unrelated or they hit something. The necessity of safety inspections is a CMV for another time, but the relevant question then becomes why people might have faulty equipment. Certainly cost is a likely culprit, but I'd venture ignorance is a close second. In my observations, people take the importance of tires and brakes for granted.   My overarching point is that there's a lot of things that a driver and vehicle owner needs to know and do if the public as a whole is to be safe on the road, and it's all too easily to get licensed without being competent or knowledgeable to be safe. I prescribe more rigorous licensing with stricter requirements. Europe is regarded as having a more stringent standard for drivers, and I don't see any reason the US can't either. CMV.   Note: I will not accept \"self-driving vehicles make this a moot point\". If your only refutation involves vehicles driving themselves, I will ignore you. They aren't here yet, and we don't definitively know when they will be here. I'm looking for a solution for today.","c_root_id_A":"fefa113","c_root_id_B":"fefqjf4","created_at_utc_A":1579051703,"created_at_utc_B":1579062344,"score_A":8,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":">First, some statistics. These come from the NHTSA for the year 2017. I'm using 2017 because it's the most recent batch of stats I can find published. In 2017, there were approximately 6,452,000 crashes reported to the Police, which resulted in 2,746,000 injuries. 34,247 crashes were fatal, which resulted in 37,133 deaths. Of the fatal crashes, only 13,416 involved collision with another moving vehicle, or 39.2%. The rest were either collisions with other objects or non-collision events (e.g. turning too sharply and rolling the vehicle).  Those numbers sound really big and out of proportion, but even when you factor in the fact that *15%* of americans don't drive, when you stack it up your breakdown amounts to 2% of the population *max*. I say max, because your statistics don't mention people who get into multiple accidents a year. Scientifically speaking you cannot eliminate 100% of accidents. When taking that into consideration you are left with roughly 1.2% room for improvement. At that point I'd argue that education is *extremely* efficient. It's eliminated 98% of the population from the pool of accidents. From there its basic calculus.         > It is hugely important to have tires that are appropriate for the season\/climate, and with an adequate amount of tread. It is also hugely important to have brakes that can stop your car quickly and efficiently.  This talking point is pretty irrelevant without supplementary law enforcement and it would be woefully unpopular. Nobody is going to pay a premium on their tires because a company says theirs are arbitrarily more equipped for season\/climate, unless they already live somewhere that has extreme weather conditions. Similarly, people are just going to ride their tires bald if they don't have the money for new ones. This is doubly so in states like California where the Smog code is exorbitantly prohibitive and basically means most people are spending $300+ a year (66% of the cost of a new set of bottom of the line tires for a standard passenger vehicle.) Between a smog cert and any necessary repairs to get the check engine light off. I also want to point out that you didn't particularly link any correlation between safety inspections and a reduction in accidents. From what I hear safety inspections are just a government revenue racket because they are trivially easy to pass.   Your numbers sound big and scary, but they don't really  reflect poorly. If we had like a 10% accident rate you might have a point. But anything under 5% can basically be summed up as \"freak accidents\" (Less than 5% is not considered statistically significant)","human_ref_B":"You can actually see what causes the crashes. It's part of the article you linked. Between alcohol, not wearing a seatbelt, speeding, and distracted driving, you explain over 90 percent of deaths.   People aren't dying (in large numbers) because they have the wrong tires, or because they are lost, or even inexperience - it's pretty much just - alcohol, speeding, seatbelts, distractions.   People already know not to do these. You don't need a 100 hour driving course to teach you these.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10641.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"eousq7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: American driver education is woefully inadequate, and creates dangerous conditions for the general public First, some statistics. These come from the NHTSA for the year 2017. I'm using 2017 because it's the most recent batch of stats I can find published. In 2017, there were approximately 6,452,000 crashes reported to the Police, which resulted in 2,746,000 injuries. 34,247 crashes were fatal, which resulted in 37,133 deaths. Of the fatal crashes, only 13,416 involved collision with another moving vehicle, or 39.2%. The rest were either collisions with other objects or non-collision events (e.g. turning too sharply and rolling the vehicle).  Source: https:\/\/crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov\/Api\/Public\/ViewPublication\/812806   American driving education is a joke. It mostly focuses on reading and abiding by assorted traffic signs. It's a relatively short course. It culminates in a written test and a short bit of driving that requires the most basic of operation to drive and park. After that, there's typically a period where you hold a learner's permit and adult supervision in required, and after that you're fully licensed and free to drive. It's quite easy and you'd have to be some kind of moron to be unable to pass it. I do not feel like it adequately prepares drivers before putting them onto the road. Presumably the intent is that it's best for people to learn while actually driving, but the problem is people don't. Many people are ill-equipped to handle aggressive urban traffic. Some are even incompetent when it comes to basic navigation. I'm not even talking older people who used to be able to drive and are losing it, I'm talking about younger people that simply aren't cognitively nimble when it comes to operating a vehicle, and I blame their driving instruction.  The common retort is that many parts of the US are unfeasible to live without a car and license, largely because of how spaced out everything is, coupled with inadequate public transportation. I am 100% on board with expanding public transit. I wish more American cities had capable train networks. I once visited Washington DC and the subway system was fantastic. I didn't have a rental car and didn't need one. That's not really relevant, because I don't think driving is difficult enough that normal people can't pass a harder test if they are properly instructed. People who are handicapped might not, but they shouldn't be driving anyway. For normal people, I don't see any reason they can't get good at driving with proper instruction.   Also, it's not just about driving technique and operation. I expect a huge part is about vehicle maintenance. Of the numbers that I posted, the part I think is the most eye-opening is that stat about what people hit, and that most collisions are NOT with a moving vehicle. Now certainly alcohol is responsible for part of that (29% of fatal crashes). Certainly texting and other distractions are responsible for many others. However, I would venture that improper maintenance makes up some of that. It is hugely important to have tires that are appropriate for the season\/climate, and with an adequate amount of tread. It is also hugely important to have brakes that can stop your car quickly and efficiently. If you car has an airbag recall, it's critical that the airbags are serviced in accordance with the recall. I had a car with an airbag recall, and a few years later I used the airbag in a frontal collision. I was relieved to get a big poofy bag of air instead of a bunch of plastic shrapnel. Vehicle safety measures are important. Yet, most of the country doesn't even have safety inspections; it's mostly just most of the east coast (from North Carolina to Maine), Texas, Louisiana, and Missouri. In all the other states, there is none. That means people can drive with bald tires and other assorted defects and no one is likely to stop them until they get pulled over for something unrelated or they hit something. The necessity of safety inspections is a CMV for another time, but the relevant question then becomes why people might have faulty equipment. Certainly cost is a likely culprit, but I'd venture ignorance is a close second. In my observations, people take the importance of tires and brakes for granted.   My overarching point is that there's a lot of things that a driver and vehicle owner needs to know and do if the public as a whole is to be safe on the road, and it's all too easily to get licensed without being competent or knowledgeable to be safe. I prescribe more rigorous licensing with stricter requirements. Europe is regarded as having a more stringent standard for drivers, and I don't see any reason the US can't either. CMV.   Note: I will not accept \"self-driving vehicles make this a moot point\". If your only refutation involves vehicles driving themselves, I will ignore you. They aren't here yet, and we don't definitively know when they will be here. I'm looking for a solution for today.","c_root_id_A":"fefqjf4","c_root_id_B":"fefohd5","created_at_utc_A":1579062344,"created_at_utc_B":1579060860,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You can actually see what causes the crashes. It's part of the article you linked. Between alcohol, not wearing a seatbelt, speeding, and distracted driving, you explain over 90 percent of deaths.   People aren't dying (in large numbers) because they have the wrong tires, or because they are lost, or even inexperience - it's pretty much just - alcohol, speeding, seatbelts, distractions.   People already know not to do these. You don't need a 100 hour driving course to teach you these.","human_ref_B":"My folks didn\u2019t believe in relying on someone else to teach me a life skill as dangerous as driving. Nor did they trust some yahoo at the DMV or the basketball coach at my High School teaching drivers ed as a pass to coach JV sports. I was doing it by 13. I was self taught\/taught by the very people who would\u2019ve actually gave a rats ass if I I died. Those people also learned from people who felt the same way  about them before we felt like we were smart enough to \u2018standardize\u2019 drivers education. At some point people need to start understanding that your offspring are your responsibility, not societies.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1484.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
+{"post_id":"eousq7","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: American driver education is woefully inadequate, and creates dangerous conditions for the general public First, some statistics. These come from the NHTSA for the year 2017. I'm using 2017 because it's the most recent batch of stats I can find published. In 2017, there were approximately 6,452,000 crashes reported to the Police, which resulted in 2,746,000 injuries. 34,247 crashes were fatal, which resulted in 37,133 deaths. Of the fatal crashes, only 13,416 involved collision with another moving vehicle, or 39.2%. The rest were either collisions with other objects or non-collision events (e.g. turning too sharply and rolling the vehicle).  Source: https:\/\/crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov\/Api\/Public\/ViewPublication\/812806   American driving education is a joke. It mostly focuses on reading and abiding by assorted traffic signs. It's a relatively short course. It culminates in a written test and a short bit of driving that requires the most basic of operation to drive and park. After that, there's typically a period where you hold a learner's permit and adult supervision in required, and after that you're fully licensed and free to drive. It's quite easy and you'd have to be some kind of moron to be unable to pass it. I do not feel like it adequately prepares drivers before putting them onto the road. Presumably the intent is that it's best for people to learn while actually driving, but the problem is people don't. Many people are ill-equipped to handle aggressive urban traffic. Some are even incompetent when it comes to basic navigation. I'm not even talking older people who used to be able to drive and are losing it, I'm talking about younger people that simply aren't cognitively nimble when it comes to operating a vehicle, and I blame their driving instruction.  The common retort is that many parts of the US are unfeasible to live without a car and license, largely because of how spaced out everything is, coupled with inadequate public transportation. I am 100% on board with expanding public transit. I wish more American cities had capable train networks. I once visited Washington DC and the subway system was fantastic. I didn't have a rental car and didn't need one. That's not really relevant, because I don't think driving is difficult enough that normal people can't pass a harder test if they are properly instructed. People who are handicapped might not, but they shouldn't be driving anyway. For normal people, I don't see any reason they can't get good at driving with proper instruction.   Also, it's not just about driving technique and operation. I expect a huge part is about vehicle maintenance. Of the numbers that I posted, the part I think is the most eye-opening is that stat about what people hit, and that most collisions are NOT with a moving vehicle. Now certainly alcohol is responsible for part of that (29% of fatal crashes). Certainly texting and other distractions are responsible for many others. However, I would venture that improper maintenance makes up some of that. It is hugely important to have tires that are appropriate for the season\/climate, and with an adequate amount of tread. It is also hugely important to have brakes that can stop your car quickly and efficiently. If you car has an airbag recall, it's critical that the airbags are serviced in accordance with the recall. I had a car with an airbag recall, and a few years later I used the airbag in a frontal collision. I was relieved to get a big poofy bag of air instead of a bunch of plastic shrapnel. Vehicle safety measures are important. Yet, most of the country doesn't even have safety inspections; it's mostly just most of the east coast (from North Carolina to Maine), Texas, Louisiana, and Missouri. In all the other states, there is none. That means people can drive with bald tires and other assorted defects and no one is likely to stop them until they get pulled over for something unrelated or they hit something. The necessity of safety inspections is a CMV for another time, but the relevant question then becomes why people might have faulty equipment. Certainly cost is a likely culprit, but I'd venture ignorance is a close second. In my observations, people take the importance of tires and brakes for granted.   My overarching point is that there's a lot of things that a driver and vehicle owner needs to know and do if the public as a whole is to be safe on the road, and it's all too easily to get licensed without being competent or knowledgeable to be safe. I prescribe more rigorous licensing with stricter requirements. Europe is regarded as having a more stringent standard for drivers, and I don't see any reason the US can't either. CMV.   Note: I will not accept \"self-driving vehicles make this a moot point\". If your only refutation involves vehicles driving themselves, I will ignore you. They aren't here yet, and we don't definitively know when they will be here. I'm looking for a solution for today.","c_root_id_A":"fefohd5","c_root_id_B":"feg3ot6","created_at_utc_A":1579060860,"created_at_utc_B":1579075516,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"My folks didn\u2019t believe in relying on someone else to teach me a life skill as dangerous as driving. Nor did they trust some yahoo at the DMV or the basketball coach at my High School teaching drivers ed as a pass to coach JV sports. I was doing it by 13. I was self taught\/taught by the very people who would\u2019ve actually gave a rats ass if I I died. Those people also learned from people who felt the same way  about them before we felt like we were smart enough to \u2018standardize\u2019 drivers education. At some point people need to start understanding that your offspring are your responsibility, not societies.","human_ref_B":"Okay, I'm going to take a stab at this. Let me preface by saying, I have to travel all over the country for my job, grew up in a major urban areas, and currently live in a much more rural area. I have some pretty extensive experience in these areas and a solid outlook on the real world implications involved.  Now, I want to start by saying that these numbers you listed are actually pretty stellar for a country of nearly 320 million total people. Even at almost 40 thousand casualties, which let's low ball it and say half are reckless driving in some form or fashion, is a really good statistic when personal cars are our primary mode of transportation. In fact, it's even better when you think about it being the only mode of transportation in some places.  That last point is important to keep in mind as raising a testing standard could effectively result in crippling the way many people can make a living. You maybe keep a few extra poor drivers off the road but you could also stall their lives by not allowing them access to work or to commute at all if there's no public transit, which is the case in a lot of rural areas. In Europe it's no big deal, the countries are small enough and the transit systems are there (as I saw while I was abroad in college) but that system doesn't work when you're talking about a country the size of the US. There's huge stretches of land between different towns and sometimes even just between someone's home to the town they technically are a part of.   Then there's the matter of the vehicle upkeep since we're on livelihood. It's true, maintaining your vehicle is important for your safety and the safety of others hit you're really brushing off the monetary aspects here. I'm not a car person but any time something has gone wrong with my car, I could definitely tell. It's condescending to assume that because someone can't tell you exactly what's wrong when it happens that they can't tell something isn't right in general. Vehicles are actually very sensitive and when you're in the driver's seat you'll feel or hear something off, but taking care of it is another matter. You're talking hundreds of potential dollars to go into repairs, more than that if it's multiple parts. Tires, as you listed, are a great example of this.   More and more cars come standard with all season tires and while they are definitely better than the low rung tires they're also definitely more expensive. For a decent set of replacement all season tires on my car, you're talking $1200 easy. At one point in my life, that might be what I made in a month, and I still had bills, rent, and food to buy so yeah, I waited as long as I could. It's not that I didn't see what was wrong, it's that I couldn't really do anything about it since a place to live, with livable conditions, and food are higher priority in the immediate. And even if you made annual inspections mandatory, if they aren't free then you'll just have people ignore them the same way they do insurance or tags when they can't afford them but still need to drive.   But on to the main point, the testing. My question is, what are you going to do to make the testing harder? The test, as it stands, is to show you have the skills necessary to operate a vehicle. Not that you're a master, not that you're perfect behind the wheel, but that you can do it within the confines of the law and the rules set before you to meet the standard. And just like any other certification, if you pass you pass. Doesn't matter if it's flying colors or barely passing, same result. In another context, a friend of mine says \"The last guy to make it through med school is still a doctor\".  So let's say we follow the euro model and required more time in class, more testing, some going years at a time before you can be an independent driver (England and Ireland are examples of this) but this leaves you with the same problem as before. More time before you can drive, more time until you can become a working, fully functional, productive member of society.   Further, standardized testing doesn't show much of anything that will result from that testing. Do you still drive with your hands at 10 and 2 at all times, no music on, always perfectly in the speed limit, not talking to or interacting with anyone in the car, never talking a phone call (even on speaker or through the car), making sure your wheels are turned that certain way when you park?  Just because you can demonstrate certain skills and practices during a test doesn't mean that's how you will continue to do something once the test is over. This, to me, is the fatal flaw of the argument. Making the test harder and tightening the threshold to drivers will likely still result in people driving like idiots once they've passed and will likely hinder others from living. We see it in all kinds of testing, people do what they need to get through and then carry on in a reckless manner because that pressure is off.   My question to you is, what would you do to make the testing harder? It doesn't seem like you've put nearly as much stock into the actual discussion you presented as you did to vehicle maintenance.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14656.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"60rllv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump played the Republican Party and is not a Republican I personally believe President Donald Trump is not a Republican by value, but a Fascist.  I do not throw that word around, and I do not mean it as an insult, I literally mean he is a fascist.     Let me first expose why I don\u2019t believe he is a Republican or has Republican values: 1.\tDonald Trump is \u201cvery pro choice\u201d.  He stated this in an interview in 1999 on Meet The Press. 2.\tDonald Trump has a very limited knowledge of the Bible.  I know this is a stretch, but the GOP in the US has very strong Biblical beliefs, and many of their stances are based around said book (against gay marriage, pro life, etc).  This came to fruition when he mispronounced II Corinthians as \u201ctwo Corinthians\u201d, and even more so when he stated he never asked for forgiveness because he doesn\u2019t do anything bad. 3.\tDonald Trump wants to expand government\u2019s power over it\u2019s citizens, not reduce it.  He stated last year that he\u2019s a fan of Eminent Domain, and is actively using it to acquire land near the Mexican border for his wall.  Through his cutting back of funding for the EPA (which educates and provides regulations that keep air and water more clean), the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor.     My support for him being a fascist: 1.\tHis leaning towards a corporatist economic system.  He is promoting massive tax cuts for wealthy companies, but hardly touching small, 100 employees or less companies.  Removing the restrictions of Dodd-Frank, which protects individuals from predatory lending and collection practices is one such move. 2.\tAttempting to discredit media.  We can all agree that MSM has it\u2019s own agenda, that really isn\u2019t what\u2019s up for discussion here.  What is, however, is his attempt to decide what is \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cfake\u201d news.  He has labeled CNN as \u201cFake News\u201d, while praising Fox and Friends.  He seems to do this not on a basis of fact\/fiction, but on a basis of whether or not they agree with him.  Just yesterday, during the FBI and NSA hearings, he called the hearings \u201cFake News\u201d even though they were literally happening while he was tweeting about it.  He is attempting to claim a monopoly on the truth. 3.\tPower through military.  His budget proposal cuts social welfare programs, environmental protection programs, and education programs to bolster our already large military.   4.\tAttempting to discredit other branches of government.  We all remember that \u201cSEE YOU IN COURT!\u201d tweet he put out as he lost a court battle regarding the banning of people from certain nations, but the courts aren\u2019t the only one.  He has bashed Congress several times over the past few years, and especially during the election.  Claiming the courts are \u201cliberal\u201d (ie. Against what he wants) if they find him wrong, and supporting those that agree with him. 5.\tHis history of alleged sexual abuse.  Mussolini labeled women as \u201creproducers of the nation\u201d and recommended against employing them.  It\u2019s almost as though Trump shares this view and sees them as objects rather than human beings.  Whether it\u2019s walking into the changing rooms at pageants or \u201cgrabbing them by the *****\u201d, or the several allegations of sexual misconduct against him, we have to admit his history with women is a bit rocky at best. 6.\tRacial\/National division.  Trump has repeatedly kicked minorities out of his rallies, including some who claim to have been legitimately there to learn his stances.  His quotes on people from Mexico and Muslims go without saying as well.  \u201cA ban on all Muslims from entering the country\u201d is one of his campaign promises.  Most people will say \u201cMuslim\u2019s aren\u2019t a race\u201d, but let me clarify: a race is just a shared characteristic between groups of people.  It doesn\u2019t have to be physical color.  It can be nationality, religion, skin color, disability, etc. I am posting this here legitimately out of trying to understand where he stands.  I\u2019m not trying to attack his character, nor his position in government.  I\u2019m just a naturally curious person and would like to see what you all think about this as well.   Edit: I suck at formatting, please be nice lol _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"df8qpwb","c_root_id_B":"df8qokv","created_at_utc_A":1490144985,"created_at_utc_B":1490144938,"score_A":23,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Donald Trump is a member of the Republican Party. That makes him a Republican.   The Republican party has a fairly large coverage politically from moderates to extremists. It does not have a specific set of values written down anywhere that all Republicans have to adhere to. Therefore the Republican values are defined by the actions of the Republican Party. As the Republican party is currently run by Trump, the Republican values are Trump values. Sorry, but YOU are the one who is not a Republican and are not adhering to Republican values.    Good for you.","human_ref_B":"Republican is a self applied label. The only requirement to being a Republican is to call yourself one.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":47.0,"score_ratio":3.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"60rllv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump played the Republican Party and is not a Republican I personally believe President Donald Trump is not a Republican by value, but a Fascist.  I do not throw that word around, and I do not mean it as an insult, I literally mean he is a fascist.     Let me first expose why I don\u2019t believe he is a Republican or has Republican values: 1.\tDonald Trump is \u201cvery pro choice\u201d.  He stated this in an interview in 1999 on Meet The Press. 2.\tDonald Trump has a very limited knowledge of the Bible.  I know this is a stretch, but the GOP in the US has very strong Biblical beliefs, and many of their stances are based around said book (against gay marriage, pro life, etc).  This came to fruition when he mispronounced II Corinthians as \u201ctwo Corinthians\u201d, and even more so when he stated he never asked for forgiveness because he doesn\u2019t do anything bad. 3.\tDonald Trump wants to expand government\u2019s power over it\u2019s citizens, not reduce it.  He stated last year that he\u2019s a fan of Eminent Domain, and is actively using it to acquire land near the Mexican border for his wall.  Through his cutting back of funding for the EPA (which educates and provides regulations that keep air and water more clean), the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor.     My support for him being a fascist: 1.\tHis leaning towards a corporatist economic system.  He is promoting massive tax cuts for wealthy companies, but hardly touching small, 100 employees or less companies.  Removing the restrictions of Dodd-Frank, which protects individuals from predatory lending and collection practices is one such move. 2.\tAttempting to discredit media.  We can all agree that MSM has it\u2019s own agenda, that really isn\u2019t what\u2019s up for discussion here.  What is, however, is his attempt to decide what is \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cfake\u201d news.  He has labeled CNN as \u201cFake News\u201d, while praising Fox and Friends.  He seems to do this not on a basis of fact\/fiction, but on a basis of whether or not they agree with him.  Just yesterday, during the FBI and NSA hearings, he called the hearings \u201cFake News\u201d even though they were literally happening while he was tweeting about it.  He is attempting to claim a monopoly on the truth. 3.\tPower through military.  His budget proposal cuts social welfare programs, environmental protection programs, and education programs to bolster our already large military.   4.\tAttempting to discredit other branches of government.  We all remember that \u201cSEE YOU IN COURT!\u201d tweet he put out as he lost a court battle regarding the banning of people from certain nations, but the courts aren\u2019t the only one.  He has bashed Congress several times over the past few years, and especially during the election.  Claiming the courts are \u201cliberal\u201d (ie. Against what he wants) if they find him wrong, and supporting those that agree with him. 5.\tHis history of alleged sexual abuse.  Mussolini labeled women as \u201creproducers of the nation\u201d and recommended against employing them.  It\u2019s almost as though Trump shares this view and sees them as objects rather than human beings.  Whether it\u2019s walking into the changing rooms at pageants or \u201cgrabbing them by the *****\u201d, or the several allegations of sexual misconduct against him, we have to admit his history with women is a bit rocky at best. 6.\tRacial\/National division.  Trump has repeatedly kicked minorities out of his rallies, including some who claim to have been legitimately there to learn his stances.  His quotes on people from Mexico and Muslims go without saying as well.  \u201cA ban on all Muslims from entering the country\u201d is one of his campaign promises.  Most people will say \u201cMuslim\u2019s aren\u2019t a race\u201d, but let me clarify: a race is just a shared characteristic between groups of people.  It doesn\u2019t have to be physical color.  It can be nationality, religion, skin color, disability, etc. I am posting this here legitimately out of trying to understand where he stands.  I\u2019m not trying to attack his character, nor his position in government.  I\u2019m just a naturally curious person and would like to see what you all think about this as well.   Edit: I suck at formatting, please be nice lol _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"df8r3h7","c_root_id_B":"df8rd9m","created_at_utc_A":1490145462,"created_at_utc_B":1490145791,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Though I agree with you on almost every point, and even that he was a during the campaign he was a RINO, but sadly he is now the head of the republican party. His actions define the party for the current state, and they own him and his legacy.  The Republicans really have been having a bit of an identity crisis since the 1970s with Jerry Falwell and the moral majority bringing some of the disparate voter bases and ideologies under one banner. Rather than being basically slightly more conservative classical liberals the republican party suddenly started to slip to the right socially.  While still trying to maintain a liberal economic view. Since then it has been absolutely struggling to build a cohesive message without an enemy. Trump just made it that the enemy was the government and other american liberals, as well as minorities, and all our traditional allies.  As much as I wish we could just ignore him, and say he is just an aberration, but the current republican party is defined by him and his actions.","human_ref_B":"1. So? I'm a pro-choice republican. And he probably changed his view to get more support. Just like Hillary with gay marriage.  2. Again, so? I'm a republican with almost no knowledge of the bible. You don't have to be christian to be a Republican.   3. Ya and I think that's fucked up, but there is a section of the Republican party that thinks that the government should enforce that section's values.    The whole Facism thing:   1. Ok so. He supports corporate interests, how does that make him a fascist?   2. He has pretty good reason to try to discredit the media. Certain parts of the media have clear bias against him. Now I may think that a president should just fucking suck it up and take the abuse but he may feel differently. This doesn't make him a fascist.   3. He wants to support the military. He has yet to enforce martial law or suggest that the military be used on American soil. There's a clear difference between wanting a strong defense and being a fascist.   4. I kinda seems to me like you think that talking shit = fascism.   5. Firstly alleged means unproven so you probably shouldn't be using it as evidence. Secondly, Clinton and Johnson weren't too respectful of women. Do you think that they were fascists?   6. He kicked people who were disruptive out of his rallies. He said illegal immigrants were bad not all Mexicans.   >a race is just a shared characteristic between groups of people. It doesn\u2019t have to be physical color. It can be nationality, religion, skin color, disability, etc. I am posting this here legitimately out of trying to understand where he stands.  This whole make up a new definition of a word to fit whatever I'm trying to argue thing is fucking hilarious.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":329.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"60rllv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump played the Republican Party and is not a Republican I personally believe President Donald Trump is not a Republican by value, but a Fascist.  I do not throw that word around, and I do not mean it as an insult, I literally mean he is a fascist.     Let me first expose why I don\u2019t believe he is a Republican or has Republican values: 1.\tDonald Trump is \u201cvery pro choice\u201d.  He stated this in an interview in 1999 on Meet The Press. 2.\tDonald Trump has a very limited knowledge of the Bible.  I know this is a stretch, but the GOP in the US has very strong Biblical beliefs, and many of their stances are based around said book (against gay marriage, pro life, etc).  This came to fruition when he mispronounced II Corinthians as \u201ctwo Corinthians\u201d, and even more so when he stated he never asked for forgiveness because he doesn\u2019t do anything bad. 3.\tDonald Trump wants to expand government\u2019s power over it\u2019s citizens, not reduce it.  He stated last year that he\u2019s a fan of Eminent Domain, and is actively using it to acquire land near the Mexican border for his wall.  Through his cutting back of funding for the EPA (which educates and provides regulations that keep air and water more clean), the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor.     My support for him being a fascist: 1.\tHis leaning towards a corporatist economic system.  He is promoting massive tax cuts for wealthy companies, but hardly touching small, 100 employees or less companies.  Removing the restrictions of Dodd-Frank, which protects individuals from predatory lending and collection practices is one such move. 2.\tAttempting to discredit media.  We can all agree that MSM has it\u2019s own agenda, that really isn\u2019t what\u2019s up for discussion here.  What is, however, is his attempt to decide what is \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cfake\u201d news.  He has labeled CNN as \u201cFake News\u201d, while praising Fox and Friends.  He seems to do this not on a basis of fact\/fiction, but on a basis of whether or not they agree with him.  Just yesterday, during the FBI and NSA hearings, he called the hearings \u201cFake News\u201d even though they were literally happening while he was tweeting about it.  He is attempting to claim a monopoly on the truth. 3.\tPower through military.  His budget proposal cuts social welfare programs, environmental protection programs, and education programs to bolster our already large military.   4.\tAttempting to discredit other branches of government.  We all remember that \u201cSEE YOU IN COURT!\u201d tweet he put out as he lost a court battle regarding the banning of people from certain nations, but the courts aren\u2019t the only one.  He has bashed Congress several times over the past few years, and especially during the election.  Claiming the courts are \u201cliberal\u201d (ie. Against what he wants) if they find him wrong, and supporting those that agree with him. 5.\tHis history of alleged sexual abuse.  Mussolini labeled women as \u201creproducers of the nation\u201d and recommended against employing them.  It\u2019s almost as though Trump shares this view and sees them as objects rather than human beings.  Whether it\u2019s walking into the changing rooms at pageants or \u201cgrabbing them by the *****\u201d, or the several allegations of sexual misconduct against him, we have to admit his history with women is a bit rocky at best. 6.\tRacial\/National division.  Trump has repeatedly kicked minorities out of his rallies, including some who claim to have been legitimately there to learn his stances.  His quotes on people from Mexico and Muslims go without saying as well.  \u201cA ban on all Muslims from entering the country\u201d is one of his campaign promises.  Most people will say \u201cMuslim\u2019s aren\u2019t a race\u201d, but let me clarify: a race is just a shared characteristic between groups of people.  It doesn\u2019t have to be physical color.  It can be nationality, religion, skin color, disability, etc. I am posting this here legitimately out of trying to understand where he stands.  I\u2019m not trying to attack his character, nor his position in government.  I\u2019m just a naturally curious person and would like to see what you all think about this as well.   Edit: I suck at formatting, please be nice lol _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"df8rd9m","c_root_id_B":"df8r8vt","created_at_utc_A":1490145791,"created_at_utc_B":1490145641,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"1. So? I'm a pro-choice republican. And he probably changed his view to get more support. Just like Hillary with gay marriage.  2. Again, so? I'm a republican with almost no knowledge of the bible. You don't have to be christian to be a Republican.   3. Ya and I think that's fucked up, but there is a section of the Republican party that thinks that the government should enforce that section's values.    The whole Facism thing:   1. Ok so. He supports corporate interests, how does that make him a fascist?   2. He has pretty good reason to try to discredit the media. Certain parts of the media have clear bias against him. Now I may think that a president should just fucking suck it up and take the abuse but he may feel differently. This doesn't make him a fascist.   3. He wants to support the military. He has yet to enforce martial law or suggest that the military be used on American soil. There's a clear difference between wanting a strong defense and being a fascist.   4. I kinda seems to me like you think that talking shit = fascism.   5. Firstly alleged means unproven so you probably shouldn't be using it as evidence. Secondly, Clinton and Johnson weren't too respectful of women. Do you think that they were fascists?   6. He kicked people who were disruptive out of his rallies. He said illegal immigrants were bad not all Mexicans.   >a race is just a shared characteristic between groups of people. It doesn\u2019t have to be physical color. It can be nationality, religion, skin color, disability, etc. I am posting this here legitimately out of trying to understand where he stands.  This whole make up a new definition of a word to fit whatever I'm trying to argue thing is fucking hilarious.","human_ref_B":"Republican is a word which comprises many viewpoints of vastly different people. As such, at some point you have to define a threshold for how many of the common Republican viewpoints one needs to be considered \"Republican.\" Donald Trump is pushing the American Healthcare Act, denies climate change, proposes economic policies favoring corporations and the rich, as well as increasing military spending. In a sense, he is for \"small government\" in that he is attempting to cut funding for numerous aspects of government. All of these things have at one point or another been championed by Republicans. I think Trump has fascist elements, but a lot of his policy proposals reflect those of others in his party.  Now, he does certainly diverge with contemporary Republicans on a lot of points, but the fact that he and Congress have similar agendas demonstrates that he is certainly a Republican in some ways.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":150.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"60rllv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump played the Republican Party and is not a Republican I personally believe President Donald Trump is not a Republican by value, but a Fascist.  I do not throw that word around, and I do not mean it as an insult, I literally mean he is a fascist.     Let me first expose why I don\u2019t believe he is a Republican or has Republican values: 1.\tDonald Trump is \u201cvery pro choice\u201d.  He stated this in an interview in 1999 on Meet The Press. 2.\tDonald Trump has a very limited knowledge of the Bible.  I know this is a stretch, but the GOP in the US has very strong Biblical beliefs, and many of their stances are based around said book (against gay marriage, pro life, etc).  This came to fruition when he mispronounced II Corinthians as \u201ctwo Corinthians\u201d, and even more so when he stated he never asked for forgiveness because he doesn\u2019t do anything bad. 3.\tDonald Trump wants to expand government\u2019s power over it\u2019s citizens, not reduce it.  He stated last year that he\u2019s a fan of Eminent Domain, and is actively using it to acquire land near the Mexican border for his wall.  Through his cutting back of funding for the EPA (which educates and provides regulations that keep air and water more clean), the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor.     My support for him being a fascist: 1.\tHis leaning towards a corporatist economic system.  He is promoting massive tax cuts for wealthy companies, but hardly touching small, 100 employees or less companies.  Removing the restrictions of Dodd-Frank, which protects individuals from predatory lending and collection practices is one such move. 2.\tAttempting to discredit media.  We can all agree that MSM has it\u2019s own agenda, that really isn\u2019t what\u2019s up for discussion here.  What is, however, is his attempt to decide what is \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cfake\u201d news.  He has labeled CNN as \u201cFake News\u201d, while praising Fox and Friends.  He seems to do this not on a basis of fact\/fiction, but on a basis of whether or not they agree with him.  Just yesterday, during the FBI and NSA hearings, he called the hearings \u201cFake News\u201d even though they were literally happening while he was tweeting about it.  He is attempting to claim a monopoly on the truth. 3.\tPower through military.  His budget proposal cuts social welfare programs, environmental protection programs, and education programs to bolster our already large military.   4.\tAttempting to discredit other branches of government.  We all remember that \u201cSEE YOU IN COURT!\u201d tweet he put out as he lost a court battle regarding the banning of people from certain nations, but the courts aren\u2019t the only one.  He has bashed Congress several times over the past few years, and especially during the election.  Claiming the courts are \u201cliberal\u201d (ie. Against what he wants) if they find him wrong, and supporting those that agree with him. 5.\tHis history of alleged sexual abuse.  Mussolini labeled women as \u201creproducers of the nation\u201d and recommended against employing them.  It\u2019s almost as though Trump shares this view and sees them as objects rather than human beings.  Whether it\u2019s walking into the changing rooms at pageants or \u201cgrabbing them by the *****\u201d, or the several allegations of sexual misconduct against him, we have to admit his history with women is a bit rocky at best. 6.\tRacial\/National division.  Trump has repeatedly kicked minorities out of his rallies, including some who claim to have been legitimately there to learn his stances.  His quotes on people from Mexico and Muslims go without saying as well.  \u201cA ban on all Muslims from entering the country\u201d is one of his campaign promises.  Most people will say \u201cMuslim\u2019s aren\u2019t a race\u201d, but let me clarify: a race is just a shared characteristic between groups of people.  It doesn\u2019t have to be physical color.  It can be nationality, religion, skin color, disability, etc. I am posting this here legitimately out of trying to understand where he stands.  I\u2019m not trying to attack his character, nor his position in government.  I\u2019m just a naturally curious person and would like to see what you all think about this as well.   Edit: I suck at formatting, please be nice lol _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"df8s62j","c_root_id_B":"df8r3h7","created_at_utc_A":1490146788,"created_at_utc_B":1490145462,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Trump has support from GOP voters. He had and has support from GOP rank and file.   The GOP is now the party of Trump.","human_ref_B":"Though I agree with you on almost every point, and even that he was a during the campaign he was a RINO, but sadly he is now the head of the republican party. His actions define the party for the current state, and they own him and his legacy.  The Republicans really have been having a bit of an identity crisis since the 1970s with Jerry Falwell and the moral majority bringing some of the disparate voter bases and ideologies under one banner. Rather than being basically slightly more conservative classical liberals the republican party suddenly started to slip to the right socially.  While still trying to maintain a liberal economic view. Since then it has been absolutely struggling to build a cohesive message without an enemy. Trump just made it that the enemy was the government and other american liberals, as well as minorities, and all our traditional allies.  As much as I wish we could just ignore him, and say he is just an aberration, but the current republican party is defined by him and his actions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1326.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"60rllv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump played the Republican Party and is not a Republican I personally believe President Donald Trump is not a Republican by value, but a Fascist.  I do not throw that word around, and I do not mean it as an insult, I literally mean he is a fascist.     Let me first expose why I don\u2019t believe he is a Republican or has Republican values: 1.\tDonald Trump is \u201cvery pro choice\u201d.  He stated this in an interview in 1999 on Meet The Press. 2.\tDonald Trump has a very limited knowledge of the Bible.  I know this is a stretch, but the GOP in the US has very strong Biblical beliefs, and many of their stances are based around said book (against gay marriage, pro life, etc).  This came to fruition when he mispronounced II Corinthians as \u201ctwo Corinthians\u201d, and even more so when he stated he never asked for forgiveness because he doesn\u2019t do anything bad. 3.\tDonald Trump wants to expand government\u2019s power over it\u2019s citizens, not reduce it.  He stated last year that he\u2019s a fan of Eminent Domain, and is actively using it to acquire land near the Mexican border for his wall.  Through his cutting back of funding for the EPA (which educates and provides regulations that keep air and water more clean), the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor.     My support for him being a fascist: 1.\tHis leaning towards a corporatist economic system.  He is promoting massive tax cuts for wealthy companies, but hardly touching small, 100 employees or less companies.  Removing the restrictions of Dodd-Frank, which protects individuals from predatory lending and collection practices is one such move. 2.\tAttempting to discredit media.  We can all agree that MSM has it\u2019s own agenda, that really isn\u2019t what\u2019s up for discussion here.  What is, however, is his attempt to decide what is \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cfake\u201d news.  He has labeled CNN as \u201cFake News\u201d, while praising Fox and Friends.  He seems to do this not on a basis of fact\/fiction, but on a basis of whether or not they agree with him.  Just yesterday, during the FBI and NSA hearings, he called the hearings \u201cFake News\u201d even though they were literally happening while he was tweeting about it.  He is attempting to claim a monopoly on the truth. 3.\tPower through military.  His budget proposal cuts social welfare programs, environmental protection programs, and education programs to bolster our already large military.   4.\tAttempting to discredit other branches of government.  We all remember that \u201cSEE YOU IN COURT!\u201d tweet he put out as he lost a court battle regarding the banning of people from certain nations, but the courts aren\u2019t the only one.  He has bashed Congress several times over the past few years, and especially during the election.  Claiming the courts are \u201cliberal\u201d (ie. Against what he wants) if they find him wrong, and supporting those that agree with him. 5.\tHis history of alleged sexual abuse.  Mussolini labeled women as \u201creproducers of the nation\u201d and recommended against employing them.  It\u2019s almost as though Trump shares this view and sees them as objects rather than human beings.  Whether it\u2019s walking into the changing rooms at pageants or \u201cgrabbing them by the *****\u201d, or the several allegations of sexual misconduct against him, we have to admit his history with women is a bit rocky at best. 6.\tRacial\/National division.  Trump has repeatedly kicked minorities out of his rallies, including some who claim to have been legitimately there to learn his stances.  His quotes on people from Mexico and Muslims go without saying as well.  \u201cA ban on all Muslims from entering the country\u201d is one of his campaign promises.  Most people will say \u201cMuslim\u2019s aren\u2019t a race\u201d, but let me clarify: a race is just a shared characteristic between groups of people.  It doesn\u2019t have to be physical color.  It can be nationality, religion, skin color, disability, etc. I am posting this here legitimately out of trying to understand where he stands.  I\u2019m not trying to attack his character, nor his position in government.  I\u2019m just a naturally curious person and would like to see what you all think about this as well.   Edit: I suck at formatting, please be nice lol _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"df8s62j","c_root_id_B":"df8r8vt","created_at_utc_A":1490146788,"created_at_utc_B":1490145641,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Trump has support from GOP voters. He had and has support from GOP rank and file.   The GOP is now the party of Trump.","human_ref_B":"Republican is a word which comprises many viewpoints of vastly different people. As such, at some point you have to define a threshold for how many of the common Republican viewpoints one needs to be considered \"Republican.\" Donald Trump is pushing the American Healthcare Act, denies climate change, proposes economic policies favoring corporations and the rich, as well as increasing military spending. In a sense, he is for \"small government\" in that he is attempting to cut funding for numerous aspects of government. All of these things have at one point or another been championed by Republicans. I think Trump has fascist elements, but a lot of his policy proposals reflect those of others in his party.  Now, he does certainly diverge with contemporary Republicans on a lot of points, but the fact that he and Congress have similar agendas demonstrates that he is certainly a Republican in some ways.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1147.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"60rllv","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: Donald Trump played the Republican Party and is not a Republican I personally believe President Donald Trump is not a Republican by value, but a Fascist.  I do not throw that word around, and I do not mean it as an insult, I literally mean he is a fascist.     Let me first expose why I don\u2019t believe he is a Republican or has Republican values: 1.\tDonald Trump is \u201cvery pro choice\u201d.  He stated this in an interview in 1999 on Meet The Press. 2.\tDonald Trump has a very limited knowledge of the Bible.  I know this is a stretch, but the GOP in the US has very strong Biblical beliefs, and many of their stances are based around said book (against gay marriage, pro life, etc).  This came to fruition when he mispronounced II Corinthians as \u201ctwo Corinthians\u201d, and even more so when he stated he never asked for forgiveness because he doesn\u2019t do anything bad. 3.\tDonald Trump wants to expand government\u2019s power over it\u2019s citizens, not reduce it.  He stated last year that he\u2019s a fan of Eminent Domain, and is actively using it to acquire land near the Mexican border for his wall.  Through his cutting back of funding for the EPA (which educates and provides regulations that keep air and water more clean), the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor.     My support for him being a fascist: 1.\tHis leaning towards a corporatist economic system.  He is promoting massive tax cuts for wealthy companies, but hardly touching small, 100 employees or less companies.  Removing the restrictions of Dodd-Frank, which protects individuals from predatory lending and collection practices is one such move. 2.\tAttempting to discredit media.  We can all agree that MSM has it\u2019s own agenda, that really isn\u2019t what\u2019s up for discussion here.  What is, however, is his attempt to decide what is \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cfake\u201d news.  He has labeled CNN as \u201cFake News\u201d, while praising Fox and Friends.  He seems to do this not on a basis of fact\/fiction, but on a basis of whether or not they agree with him.  Just yesterday, during the FBI and NSA hearings, he called the hearings \u201cFake News\u201d even though they were literally happening while he was tweeting about it.  He is attempting to claim a monopoly on the truth. 3.\tPower through military.  His budget proposal cuts social welfare programs, environmental protection programs, and education programs to bolster our already large military.   4.\tAttempting to discredit other branches of government.  We all remember that \u201cSEE YOU IN COURT!\u201d tweet he put out as he lost a court battle regarding the banning of people from certain nations, but the courts aren\u2019t the only one.  He has bashed Congress several times over the past few years, and especially during the election.  Claiming the courts are \u201cliberal\u201d (ie. Against what he wants) if they find him wrong, and supporting those that agree with him. 5.\tHis history of alleged sexual abuse.  Mussolini labeled women as \u201creproducers of the nation\u201d and recommended against employing them.  It\u2019s almost as though Trump shares this view and sees them as objects rather than human beings.  Whether it\u2019s walking into the changing rooms at pageants or \u201cgrabbing them by the *****\u201d, or the several allegations of sexual misconduct against him, we have to admit his history with women is a bit rocky at best. 6.\tRacial\/National division.  Trump has repeatedly kicked minorities out of his rallies, including some who claim to have been legitimately there to learn his stances.  His quotes on people from Mexico and Muslims go without saying as well.  \u201cA ban on all Muslims from entering the country\u201d is one of his campaign promises.  Most people will say \u201cMuslim\u2019s aren\u2019t a race\u201d, but let me clarify: a race is just a shared characteristic between groups of people.  It doesn\u2019t have to be physical color.  It can be nationality, religion, skin color, disability, etc. I am posting this here legitimately out of trying to understand where he stands.  I\u2019m not trying to attack his character, nor his position in government.  I\u2019m just a naturally curious person and would like to see what you all think about this as well.   Edit: I suck at formatting, please be nice lol _____  > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"df8s62j","c_root_id_B":"df8rns7","created_at_utc_A":1490146788,"created_at_utc_B":1490146154,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Trump has support from GOP voters. He had and has support from GOP rank and file.   The GOP is now the party of Trump.","human_ref_B":"Being a fascist, and being a member of a political party are not mutually exclusive. There are fascist political parties.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":634.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"pklzob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: The work-from-home push by white-collar workers will eventually lead to massive outsourcing that will hurt future generations of wealthy western nations. For some generations older than mine, when they were in the workforce there was an abundance of factory jobs that provided millions of people the opportunity to earn a solid middle-class income and provide for their families. As a result of both automation and the outsourcing of labor to countries with cheaper labor, these jobs are all but gone and the middle class is a shell of what it once was. An argument that I've heard in defense of this, is that it allows for these wealthy western nations to focus more of their workforce on higher-paying professional services or white-collar jobs. Even if you assume that that statement is true, I don't see any reason why the same thing that happened to manufacturing jobs won't eventually happen to white-collar jobs that can be completed 100% virtually from home.   &#x200B;  With COVID, many jobs were forced to adapt and at least temporarily adopt a work-from-home setup. Once employees began work-from-home, many realized that there really isn't any reason to come into the office, and now won't consider any jobs that require them to come into the office 5 days a week. I think this will be a good deal for workers in the short term as it potentially gives them a little more flexibility, cuts down on their commute time, and potentially allows them to move further away from the office to a lower cost of living area. But if a job can be completed 100% from home, what's to stop employers from doing to professional services what they did to manufacturing jobs and outsourcing the work to individuals who don't expect as great a salary in return? I don't imagine this will be an instantaneous or overnight transition but it's not like people from places where the labor is cheaper are incapable of learning any job that people in wealthy western nations can. That's not to say there won't be any challenges for the outsourced white-collar jobs but the cost savings would likely make the challenges worth it in a lot of cases.   &#x200B;  So Reddit, CMV - future generations of wealthy western nations will see a similar reduction in white-collar jobs that can be completed virtually, that millennials experienced with manufacturing jobs.","c_root_id_A":"hc4cuw1","c_root_id_B":"hc4f0di","created_at_utc_A":1631144494,"created_at_utc_B":1631145544,"score_A":16,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"My best argument against this is simply that most outsourced work is done in country\u2019s with very little access to top tier education & without that many of these \u201cwhite collar jobs\u201d are out of the question for being outsourced.","human_ref_B":"There was a big wave of international outsourcing in the early 2000s. For some companies it worked, for many it didn\u2019t. Having workers in different jurisdictions, cultures, time zones is very different than having local people who work from home.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1050.0,"score_ratio":2.625}
+{"post_id":"pklzob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: The work-from-home push by white-collar workers will eventually lead to massive outsourcing that will hurt future generations of wealthy western nations. For some generations older than mine, when they were in the workforce there was an abundance of factory jobs that provided millions of people the opportunity to earn a solid middle-class income and provide for their families. As a result of both automation and the outsourcing of labor to countries with cheaper labor, these jobs are all but gone and the middle class is a shell of what it once was. An argument that I've heard in defense of this, is that it allows for these wealthy western nations to focus more of their workforce on higher-paying professional services or white-collar jobs. Even if you assume that that statement is true, I don't see any reason why the same thing that happened to manufacturing jobs won't eventually happen to white-collar jobs that can be completed 100% virtually from home.   &#x200B;  With COVID, many jobs were forced to adapt and at least temporarily adopt a work-from-home setup. Once employees began work-from-home, many realized that there really isn't any reason to come into the office, and now won't consider any jobs that require them to come into the office 5 days a week. I think this will be a good deal for workers in the short term as it potentially gives them a little more flexibility, cuts down on their commute time, and potentially allows them to move further away from the office to a lower cost of living area. But if a job can be completed 100% from home, what's to stop employers from doing to professional services what they did to manufacturing jobs and outsourcing the work to individuals who don't expect as great a salary in return? I don't imagine this will be an instantaneous or overnight transition but it's not like people from places where the labor is cheaper are incapable of learning any job that people in wealthy western nations can. That's not to say there won't be any challenges for the outsourced white-collar jobs but the cost savings would likely make the challenges worth it in a lot of cases.   &#x200B;  So Reddit, CMV - future generations of wealthy western nations will see a similar reduction in white-collar jobs that can be completed virtually, that millennials experienced with manufacturing jobs.","c_root_id_A":"hc4f0di","c_root_id_B":"hc4euvm","created_at_utc_A":1631145544,"created_at_utc_B":1631145467,"score_A":42,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"There was a big wave of international outsourcing in the early 2000s. For some companies it worked, for many it didn\u2019t. Having workers in different jurisdictions, cultures, time zones is very different than having local people who work from home.","human_ref_B":"Outsourcing happens first and foremost because businesses can save money by paying lower wages.  The whole work-from-home thing has less to do with huge sums of money, and more to do with work culture and maintaining control over workers.  Employers for sure want to maintain control over their employees and dictate work culture in their favor, but it's not a consideration that translates directly to $$$ so it is not going to trigger massive outsourcing.  If a new wave of outsourcing starts, it is just going to be because there is a new labor market to exploit - there's no other reason to do it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":77.0,"score_ratio":5.25}
+{"post_id":"pklzob","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: The work-from-home push by white-collar workers will eventually lead to massive outsourcing that will hurt future generations of wealthy western nations. For some generations older than mine, when they were in the workforce there was an abundance of factory jobs that provided millions of people the opportunity to earn a solid middle-class income and provide for their families. As a result of both automation and the outsourcing of labor to countries with cheaper labor, these jobs are all but gone and the middle class is a shell of what it once was. An argument that I've heard in defense of this, is that it allows for these wealthy western nations to focus more of their workforce on higher-paying professional services or white-collar jobs. Even if you assume that that statement is true, I don't see any reason why the same thing that happened to manufacturing jobs won't eventually happen to white-collar jobs that can be completed 100% virtually from home.   &#x200B;  With COVID, many jobs were forced to adapt and at least temporarily adopt a work-from-home setup. Once employees began work-from-home, many realized that there really isn't any reason to come into the office, and now won't consider any jobs that require them to come into the office 5 days a week. I think this will be a good deal for workers in the short term as it potentially gives them a little more flexibility, cuts down on their commute time, and potentially allows them to move further away from the office to a lower cost of living area. But if a job can be completed 100% from home, what's to stop employers from doing to professional services what they did to manufacturing jobs and outsourcing the work to individuals who don't expect as great a salary in return? I don't imagine this will be an instantaneous or overnight transition but it's not like people from places where the labor is cheaper are incapable of learning any job that people in wealthy western nations can. That's not to say there won't be any challenges for the outsourced white-collar jobs but the cost savings would likely make the challenges worth it in a lot of cases.   &#x200B;  So Reddit, CMV - future generations of wealthy western nations will see a similar reduction in white-collar jobs that can be completed virtually, that millennials experienced with manufacturing jobs.","c_root_id_A":"hc4euvm","c_root_id_B":"hc4glv3","created_at_utc_A":1631145467,"created_at_utc_B":1631146310,"score_A":8,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Outsourcing happens first and foremost because businesses can save money by paying lower wages.  The whole work-from-home thing has less to do with huge sums of money, and more to do with work culture and maintaining control over workers.  Employers for sure want to maintain control over their employees and dictate work culture in their favor, but it's not a consideration that translates directly to $$$ so it is not going to trigger massive outsourcing.  If a new wave of outsourcing starts, it is just going to be because there is a new labor market to exploit - there's no other reason to do it.","human_ref_B":"> But if a job can be completed 100% from home, what's to stop employers from doing to professional services what they did to manufacturing jobs and outsourcing the work to individuals who don't expect as great a salary in return?   This is a risk, but the bigger risk is not from work from home. Work from home is a model that is actually quite beneficial for many companies but still allows them to retain a workforce in the US (a plus both from a patriotic level and on a legal level). It cuts out some of the biggest expenditures (land\/property) and requires less from them to keep it going. Work from home is also not stable enough to be done by every company entirely overseas *yet*. The infrastucture in the developing nations is there now, but as places like India and China advance, they will shift to alternative countries in Africa, which aren't there *yet*.   Likewise, these countries also suffer from outsourcing problems and a consistent 'brain drain' phenomenon where highly educated workers aren't staying to work and live there - they're moving out and going to other countries. Eventually, the outsourcee will have to outsource their own work elsewhere.   The biggest threat to American jobs and particularly white collar jobs is *automation*. Why outsource a job at all when you can make a machine do it? One human can oversee dozens of machines, and one machine can oversee *thousands* of 'jobs' that were once done by humans. Much of the work humans do isn't that complicated and a machine can be trained to do it. It doesn't have to be better than a human, it has to be *cheaper* for the same or almost the same quality. Machines are steady and predictable in terms of expenditure (they are unlikely to quit at 11am on the busiest Wednesday of the month, for example) and they work 24\/7. They don't need fire drills, they don't need toilets, they don't need even to be in the same building. Much of the infrastructure is readily available and there's constant advancement in technology. Algorithms like YouTube's, and even systems like Netflix and Steam have essentially taken over our entertainment world. There's no need for gaming stores or physical devices once the consumer has a console in the house - it's all over the internet. There are algorithms and bots that do the humans job in many other fields - music can be composed by a bot, ad placement is decided by a bot, there are bots that dispense medicine, there are bots that can test your eyesight, there are bots that can work through diagnosing human illness, there are bots that do research and discovery in cases with a shitton of paperwork and evidence to go through. There are bots in control of our traffic light systems, bots that control facial recognition in security systems, there are bots that control our cars and public transport systems, so that they never need a human in the driving seat at all.   All of these will eliminate jobs - jobs that were once considered *human only* or at least 'human assisted' - and there is no alternative for humans. We didn't repurpose horses when they were no longer needed because we had cars - there were just less horses produced and the ones we had, we got rid of if they were no longer necessary. You can't do that to a human per se but that's the crisis that's coming.   The biggest threat to white collar jobs isn't from work from home. That's simply a pivot from a place to a place but the system is fundamentally the same. The major danger comes when there is no need for the human in the equation at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":843.0,"score_ratio":1.375}
+{"post_id":"1el9ba","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"I believe that actively reading novels, required in high school English classes, detracts from the overall value and ruins reading for students. CMV I use the term actively reading to mean taking notes on the book, annotating passages, writing essays, discussing and paying attention to literary techniques.  Currently I am in high school and I feel that if I am forced to mark a book and consider all the literary tecniques (similies, metaphors), it detracts from the overall quality of the book, and in most cases makes me not enjoy the book at all.   Most books that are required reading in high school are considered to be some of the best books ever written (Great Gadsby). I'm sure that if I were to sit down and read the book on my own, I would enjoy it, however because I was forced to analyse the deeper meanings of the book, I do not enjoy it and have bad memories of it.  Luckily, I enjoy reading in my spare time, and do so frequently, no matter what the school requires of me. However, I see this being a problem for kids that don't like to read. Because of the schools' intent on forcing them to take notes and analyse what they've read, they are ruining the student's possible enjoyment for reading forever. CMV","c_root_id_A":"ca1cy8m","c_root_id_B":"ca1buns","created_at_utc_A":1368910938,"created_at_utc_B":1368906999,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Your argument: understanding something makes it less good.","human_ref_B":"Interesting approach to education you have expressed here.   I think the point you may be missing is that the things teachers want you to do regarding taking apart anything, especially a book, is supposed to reflect the lowest level of that human activity. Technically, if you read a book for enjoyment and understanding and context and some level of critique like post structuralism then the activities they ask you to do in school will feel like doing the work in math class you do in your head.   This isn't to say lowering yourself to mark your work and your level of comprehension about critical thinking and culture and critique won't take away from reading in your spare time, but that if you already use the skills they want you to use at a higher level it should feel like a breeze if you're willing to accept the educational platform you've engaged in with your particular school and class.   Engaged in as in you've accepted the grading process and being rated against your peers for a GPA by being rated through arguably complicated tasks in the first place, apart from whether your future will rely on your GPA or not. I think the worst part of this isn't that it takes away from the experience of reading as much as it ruins a lot of the discussions you could be having with other students and teachers about the work because of the necessarily low level of analysis being required for the curriculum.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3939.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"1el9ba","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"I believe that actively reading novels, required in high school English classes, detracts from the overall value and ruins reading for students. CMV I use the term actively reading to mean taking notes on the book, annotating passages, writing essays, discussing and paying attention to literary techniques.  Currently I am in high school and I feel that if I am forced to mark a book and consider all the literary tecniques (similies, metaphors), it detracts from the overall quality of the book, and in most cases makes me not enjoy the book at all.   Most books that are required reading in high school are considered to be some of the best books ever written (Great Gadsby). I'm sure that if I were to sit down and read the book on my own, I would enjoy it, however because I was forced to analyse the deeper meanings of the book, I do not enjoy it and have bad memories of it.  Luckily, I enjoy reading in my spare time, and do so frequently, no matter what the school requires of me. However, I see this being a problem for kids that don't like to read. Because of the schools' intent on forcing them to take notes and analyse what they've read, they are ruining the student's possible enjoyment for reading forever. CMV","c_root_id_A":"ca1diyr","c_root_id_B":"ca1buns","created_at_utc_A":1368912982,"created_at_utc_B":1368906999,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I hated actively reading books in high school also.  But that was because high school analysis doesn't actually go into anything of substance.  It was as basic as possible because it had to be accessible to people who didn't really read.  You can't truly understand the book if you don't understand the literary devices used.  As someone who enjoys reading, I am guessing you find it boring because you've already begun analyzing books on your own.  You just haven't realized you were doing it.  I enjoy a book much more thoroughly when I analyze the prose and motifs.  It's no fun studying things you intuitively understand--the same thing happens in every subject.  Take a few literature classes when you get to college(above the freshman level english at the very least.)  I can almost promise you that you will find greater enjoyment in literature than you did before learning how to **really** delve into a book.","human_ref_B":"Interesting approach to education you have expressed here.   I think the point you may be missing is that the things teachers want you to do regarding taking apart anything, especially a book, is supposed to reflect the lowest level of that human activity. Technically, if you read a book for enjoyment and understanding and context and some level of critique like post structuralism then the activities they ask you to do in school will feel like doing the work in math class you do in your head.   This isn't to say lowering yourself to mark your work and your level of comprehension about critical thinking and culture and critique won't take away from reading in your spare time, but that if you already use the skills they want you to use at a higher level it should feel like a breeze if you're willing to accept the educational platform you've engaged in with your particular school and class.   Engaged in as in you've accepted the grading process and being rated against your peers for a GPA by being rated through arguably complicated tasks in the first place, apart from whether your future will rely on your GPA or not. I think the worst part of this isn't that it takes away from the experience of reading as much as it ruins a lot of the discussions you could be having with other students and teachers about the work because of the necessarily low level of analysis being required for the curriculum.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5983.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"1el9ba","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"I believe that actively reading novels, required in high school English classes, detracts from the overall value and ruins reading for students. CMV I use the term actively reading to mean taking notes on the book, annotating passages, writing essays, discussing and paying attention to literary techniques.  Currently I am in high school and I feel that if I am forced to mark a book and consider all the literary tecniques (similies, metaphors), it detracts from the overall quality of the book, and in most cases makes me not enjoy the book at all.   Most books that are required reading in high school are considered to be some of the best books ever written (Great Gadsby). I'm sure that if I were to sit down and read the book on my own, I would enjoy it, however because I was forced to analyse the deeper meanings of the book, I do not enjoy it and have bad memories of it.  Luckily, I enjoy reading in my spare time, and do so frequently, no matter what the school requires of me. However, I see this being a problem for kids that don't like to read. Because of the schools' intent on forcing them to take notes and analyse what they've read, they are ruining the student's possible enjoyment for reading forever. CMV","c_root_id_A":"ca1g6wb","c_root_id_B":"ca1buns","created_at_utc_A":1368923000,"created_at_utc_B":1368906999,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Your question made me realise how much I appreciate my English lit teacher from my last two years of high school. Our analysis of Shakespeare in those classes accomplished three discrete things that I benefit from in everyday life.  1. Whenever someone talks about Shakespeare, or something similarly complex in terms of underlying themes and motives, I understand all the terms they're using. Not just the definition of the word, but it's place in our language. My vocabulary benefited and so do all current and future career prospects, as knowing how to use techniques like metaphors, oxymoron etc. for maximum effect gives you an edge over those who don't.  2. I get more appreciation from every other source of entertainment in my life. Recognizing the intent of a piece of work and knowing to look for the creators underlying message adds so much to your understanding. This applies to movies, books, music, visual art etc. A contemporary example is Iron Man 3. It's a great action movie you can enjoy just for the cool one liners and fighting sequences, but I loved the  moment when i realized the movie wasn't about that. It was about Tony Stark coming to understanding that he isn't defined by the suit of armor and it isn't what makes him Iron Man. The movies tagline \"Tony Stark IS Iron Man\", is basically saying that it's his unique personality and the relationships he has with everyone around him who make him who he is. Personally, I think I would have enjoyed the movie less if I hadn't been equipped to recognize that.  3. I learnt how to write essays and reports. Being able to communicate clearly is invaluable, even if it's as simple as an email to a colleague. Understanding the essay structure: knowing each paragraph is a mini essay that needs a lead sentence and a concluding one, that you should link each paragraph to maintain flow, that you must reference concepts that aren't yours, these only come through practice. These tools are used everywhere, from writing scientific reports to creating web content and even for addressing selection criteria in a job application. You don't realize until you graduate (I certainly didn't), but this is easily one of, if not the most, important and multidisciplinary skill you can gain from high school.  **tl;dr English classes give you skills to better appreciate all modern art (movies\/books\/music etc.). It also teaches you how to effectively communicate through writing, the most useful multidisciplinary skill you will learn at high school IMO.**","human_ref_B":"Interesting approach to education you have expressed here.   I think the point you may be missing is that the things teachers want you to do regarding taking apart anything, especially a book, is supposed to reflect the lowest level of that human activity. Technically, if you read a book for enjoyment and understanding and context and some level of critique like post structuralism then the activities they ask you to do in school will feel like doing the work in math class you do in your head.   This isn't to say lowering yourself to mark your work and your level of comprehension about critical thinking and culture and critique won't take away from reading in your spare time, but that if you already use the skills they want you to use at a higher level it should feel like a breeze if you're willing to accept the educational platform you've engaged in with your particular school and class.   Engaged in as in you've accepted the grading process and being rated against your peers for a GPA by being rated through arguably complicated tasks in the first place, apart from whether your future will rely on your GPA or not. I think the worst part of this isn't that it takes away from the experience of reading as much as it ruins a lot of the discussions you could be having with other students and teachers about the work because of the necessarily low level of analysis being required for the curriculum.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16001.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"27869d","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: Reddit's attitude and response to people being killed when they commit a crime is not only creepy but indicative of why America has such massive social problems Whenever there is a post or video that shows someone, normally a burglar, being shot by a homeowner the response in the comments is normally at best: \"It sucks that someone died, but they forfeited their lives the moment they broke into the house\". At worse and quite often this attitude can lose the first part of the sentence and end up, if not exactly celebrating the death then at least saying it was no bad thing. While it is important to acknowledge that Reddit is not one entity and so has a varied opinion it seems that the top voted comment is consistently of this view and so can be extrapolated to present a majority opinion. If we want further proof the popularity of justice porn, which brings with it the same views and attitudes to the people being beaten up or otherwise hurt.   My problem with this is this take on human relationships is it revolves around the idea that the people who commit crimes or act immorally deserve punishment. It is sometimes acknowledged that the punishment is disproportionate, but I would go even further and say the idea of punishment does not make much sense. The people who rob and steal do so because of factors outside their control: namely social factors and to a lesser extent their genetics. Crime is tightly linked to inequality and poverty, it comes about when a society is failing its people. This is not even an argument that people might be stealing not out of greed but of necessity, although that might be the case, but that even if they *are* stealing out of greed it is only because society tells them that is right.  Never in the comment sections is there mention of trying to improve the lives of people, which would almost certainly prevent the situation in the first place. It is this view that allows for the terrible prison system in the US. Reddit likes to talk about the Drug War being the root of the problem (which I agree is **an** issue, just not **the** issue) but often overlooks the aim of the prison system in America. The American prison system is there to punish those who commit crimes, with the idea of \"justice being served\" at the heart. The aim of prisons should be to rehabilitate instead of punish. It is only in the most extreme cases, where rehabilitation is simply not possible, that a prison should act as nothing but a way to keep the very dangerous separate from the general populace. It is the attitude towards punishment and the idea that people deserve what they get that allows for the death penalty in America, which to me is immoral beyond words.  If we take the news and Reddit to give an accurate view of America then it appears that the American people are far more concerned with their own rights than they are with helping others. The arguments surrounding possible gun control are always based around the rights of the people. Few people want to talk about how to reduce inequality, improve mental health care or improve education. When there is greater talk about what rights the people should have, as in negative freedom, over what responsibilities the people and state have to one another, as in positive freedom, you get the results seen in America. _____  > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"chyfyjl","c_root_id_B":"chycnyq","created_at_utc_A":1401835307,"created_at_utc_B":1401828202,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I disagree with your take on what motivates criminals. I call it the Jean Valjean myth. It's a myth *most* of the time, I suspect. No one's stealing a loaf of bread to prevent starvation. They're stealing for a myriad of reasons, and while poverty can be one of those reasons, I believe much of the time it is not the primary reason.  If the argument is that poverty causes immorality, then wouldn't wealth cause people to be moral? Then why is Wall Street so full of criminals? These are men with degrees from top universities, making mountains of cash, and yet many engage in illegal activities. Why? They belong to a culture of greed. You know where else we see a culture of materialism and greed? Among many of the urban poor. All the Ivy League degrees in the world, even with all those required classes in Ethics and Philosophy and Art History didn't do squat to make the Donald Trumps of the world any less sleezy, greedy and totally immoral. It's a culture, plain and simple, and I have no sympathy for anyone who adopts, who willingly joins, such a culture.","human_ref_B":"I think you need to not take the opinions of the pretentious few that think they are entitled to have an opinion broadcast across the comment section of a handful of poor news sources and label that America.  There is a reason you can read any major news outlet's comment section on anything controversial and it seem insane. This is not an accurate measurement of the rest of society.  This seems to be what your OP is based on, and that's why I would say that your view is irrelevant because you are looking as far as what the comment section brings you. It may be all you have, but it is not enough to form a view on.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7105.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"mcox9e","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: Pro gun people can be more annoying than the SJW's they complain about \"COME AND TAKE IT!\" \"DON'T TREAD ON ME!\" \"EVERY GUN LAW IS AN INFRINGEMENT!\" \"SCREW THE ATF!\" \"DRILL THAT THIRD HOLE!\"  These gems and many more seem to be staples of the pro gun community and more. Oh yeah, and it seems like a bunch of people in it fetishize being raided by the ATF and having a standoff where they can see how many ATF agents they can kill before they die in a blaze of glory because \"THEY'RE COMIN FOR MUH GUNS\" However, I'm sure most of them would just capitulate and give up their guns if the ATF actually came to their door.  They love making a fuss about any potential gun control law but they mainly complain about it on Facebook and don't do much else. They don't propose gun legislation themselves that doesn't expand their right to own guns.  TL;DR Pro gun people are usually all talk and no action","c_root_id_A":"gs5i7u6","c_root_id_B":"gs5pzsz","created_at_utc_A":1616665276,"created_at_utc_B":1616671885,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"There are extremes in every camp.","human_ref_B":"People \"making a fuss\" over having their property stolen from them by the government under threat of prison time or death? Imagine that...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6609.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
+{"post_id":"8wmtdi","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV, a yellow card during in a football game should be followed by a 10 minutes suspension. Having a yellow card during a soccer game has almost no impact on the game. In my opinion, the rules and the fact that there was no VAR until now encourages situations in which players will fake an injury (yes, I just saw Mbapp\u00e9 faking) to get a free kick. The only result, if the player is caught red handed as Mbapp\u00e9 was, is at worst a yellow card and the game will go on. It is also true for rough plays on certain players (for example, Griezmann has been a target during the whole game against Argentina, and except for one yellow card, there was almost no  punishment).  Having a 10 minutes suspension like in rugby would really penalize the whole team which would need to run more and get tired faster. This would really discourage foul plays and would both protect the players and their health from tough plays and eliminate the aspect of soccer that every afficionado hates: simulation.","c_root_id_A":"e1wqbu0","c_root_id_B":"e1wqdo1","created_at_utc_A":1530905035,"created_at_utc_B":1530905076,"score_A":6,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I agree that it would discourage fouling but I don't think it would reduce faking. Cards are handed out for faking far less than they are for fouling. Therefore, if anything it would further encourage acting in order to try to get the opposing fouler thrown out.   To the contrary, I'd treat it like American Football treats injury stoppages. If you go down with an injury you have to sit out a play. They could do the same thing in soccer. Go down with an injury that stops the flow of the game and you sit out for a couple minutes to recover. You don't need yellow cards to do this.","human_ref_B":"Yellow cards are a warning. Red are the ones that come with punishments. Your recommendation basically just eliminates yellow and turns them into red.   As for faking injury, that should result in ejection from the game, not a penalty in time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":41.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"8wmtdi","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV, a yellow card during in a football game should be followed by a 10 minutes suspension. Having a yellow card during a soccer game has almost no impact on the game. In my opinion, the rules and the fact that there was no VAR until now encourages situations in which players will fake an injury (yes, I just saw Mbapp\u00e9 faking) to get a free kick. The only result, if the player is caught red handed as Mbapp\u00e9 was, is at worst a yellow card and the game will go on. It is also true for rough plays on certain players (for example, Griezmann has been a target during the whole game against Argentina, and except for one yellow card, there was almost no  punishment).  Having a 10 minutes suspension like in rugby would really penalize the whole team which would need to run more and get tired faster. This would really discourage foul plays and would both protect the players and their health from tough plays and eliminate the aspect of soccer that every afficionado hates: simulation.","c_root_id_A":"e1wtvx7","c_root_id_B":"e1wqbu0","created_at_utc_A":1530907804,"created_at_utc_B":1530905035,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I do indeed see where you are coming from and find your proposal to be very interesting, but it has some rather crucial flaws. According to some websites I found there's an average of 4 yellow cards per game, sometimes even more. If we assume the cards are distributed evenly, each team plays approximately 20 minutes in 10 men. In football, 20 minutes is a HUGE amount of time, and can lead to a goalfest. Furthermore, this would lead to a huge change in football playstyle, potentially making the offensive play overpowered, due to the fact that most defenders might be afraid to tackle to avoid being booked and therefore sent off. This change would GREATLY favor the attackers and pretty much make football a sport with almost no physical contact, as everyone would be afraid of the yellow card. Most of the tackles that stop counter-attacks are decisive ones, that are either a good tackle or a foul that can potentially lead to a yellow card. Who would risk leaving their team in 10 men for 10 minutes? Moreover, there's a rather fine difference between what is considered a yellow card foul and a foul not worthy of a yellow card.","human_ref_B":"I agree that it would discourage fouling but I don't think it would reduce faking. Cards are handed out for faking far less than they are for fouling. Therefore, if anything it would further encourage acting in order to try to get the opposing fouler thrown out.   To the contrary, I'd treat it like American Football treats injury stoppages. If you go down with an injury you have to sit out a play. They could do the same thing in soccer. Go down with an injury that stops the flow of the game and you sit out for a couple minutes to recover. You don't need yellow cards to do this.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2769.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"8wmtdi","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV, a yellow card during in a football game should be followed by a 10 minutes suspension. Having a yellow card during a soccer game has almost no impact on the game. In my opinion, the rules and the fact that there was no VAR until now encourages situations in which players will fake an injury (yes, I just saw Mbapp\u00e9 faking) to get a free kick. The only result, if the player is caught red handed as Mbapp\u00e9 was, is at worst a yellow card and the game will go on. It is also true for rough plays on certain players (for example, Griezmann has been a target during the whole game against Argentina, and except for one yellow card, there was almost no  punishment).  Having a 10 minutes suspension like in rugby would really penalize the whole team which would need to run more and get tired faster. This would really discourage foul plays and would both protect the players and their health from tough plays and eliminate the aspect of soccer that every afficionado hates: simulation.","c_root_id_A":"e1wxf89","c_root_id_B":"e1wymeb","created_at_utc_A":1530910584,"created_at_utc_B":1530911584,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Yellow Cards roll over game to game. Therefore, you have to make lineup considerations if one your players has a yellow card. A manager might bench a better player if he risks getting a second yellow.","human_ref_B":"A yellow card has too many subjective elements for it to be such a significant change. The error margins in detecting yellow-card worthy offenses is too great.  Furthermore, this change doesn't make the game any better; the team with 10 men will just resort to sitting back and defending for the 10 minutes, which results in very boring football.  > This would really discourage foul plays and would both protect the players and their health from tough plays and eliminate the aspect of soccer that every afficionado hates: simulation.  Simulation constitutes only a small part of yellow card worthy fouls. What is your jusitification for the 10 minute suspension for others?  > Having a 10 minutes suspension **like in rugby** would really penalize the whole team which would need to run more and get tired faster.   It's not a good idea to draw such direct parallels, rugby and football are very different. Losing one man in 15 rugby players vs one man in 10 outfield football players is dramatically different. There is less overlap between the 10 in football as compared to the 15 as well, and merely running more wouldn't help overcome the intrinsic differences between players in different positions.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1000.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"jdapo3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The best way to save humanity from the negative effects of climate change is to future proof our infrastructure and accept that we can\u2019t stop it from happening. I\u2019m not going to be a climate change denier, I do however think that our approach to combating climate change is flawed.  We can\u2019t stop the Earth from heating up, and it is completely natural for the planet to heat up due to things like the tilt of the earth and it\u2019s axial precession which change every so often.   We need to accept the fact that we aren\u2019t gods, and we have no control over what this planet does. We need to adapt to the changing environment and create solutions to the potential problems that climate change can create instead of signing pieces of legislation that are really just wishful thinking and a way to improve the image of world leaders.  Organisms have been fine tuning themselves to meet the demands of this planet for billions of years, I don\u2019t see why we should be the only exception to the old rule of \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d.","c_root_id_A":"g96qdh0","c_root_id_B":"g96rfeh","created_at_utc_A":1602999945,"created_at_utc_B":1603000689,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">We need to adapt to the changing environment and create solutions to the potential problems that climate change can create instead of signing pieces of legislation   Like what? Seems like any sort of infrastructure needed to deal with climate change can't be funded by and individual or even a large company, but an even larger group of people usually a government that do.things like signing legislation.","human_ref_B":"Future proofing infastructure sounds great for the world's most advanced and developed economies. Countries like the US, EU Nations, Canada, Japan, etc could  likely pay for it.  What about the poorest, developing nations who can barely feed themselves even now? How are they going to future proof what infastructure they have? Usually they are closer to the equator, and will be the most impacted. How are they going to deal with climate change? They can't pay for what you are proposing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":744.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"jdapo3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The best way to save humanity from the negative effects of climate change is to future proof our infrastructure and accept that we can\u2019t stop it from happening. I\u2019m not going to be a climate change denier, I do however think that our approach to combating climate change is flawed.  We can\u2019t stop the Earth from heating up, and it is completely natural for the planet to heat up due to things like the tilt of the earth and it\u2019s axial precession which change every so often.   We need to accept the fact that we aren\u2019t gods, and we have no control over what this planet does. We need to adapt to the changing environment and create solutions to the potential problems that climate change can create instead of signing pieces of legislation that are really just wishful thinking and a way to improve the image of world leaders.  Organisms have been fine tuning themselves to meet the demands of this planet for billions of years, I don\u2019t see why we should be the only exception to the old rule of \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d.","c_root_id_A":"g96qdh0","c_root_id_B":"g97eg0c","created_at_utc_A":1602999945,"created_at_utc_B":1603017876,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">We need to adapt to the changing environment and create solutions to the potential problems that climate change can create instead of signing pieces of legislation   Like what? Seems like any sort of infrastructure needed to deal with climate change can't be funded by and individual or even a large company, but an even larger group of people usually a government that do.things like signing legislation.","human_ref_B":"You create a false dilemma. I'm actually pretty sure that we have people attacking the problem from both assumptions. The optimists are already busy researching alternative energy sources, developing fuel efficient technologies, and passing carbon reducing regulation. Some of them are probably doing so even while considering the increasingly likely possibility that these stopguards will ultimately fail.  On the other end we have pessimists who are damming up sea walls, and reinvesting into alternate avenues to maintain the best quality of life in our new diminished environment. There might be some dilemmas in that maybe some of these jobs could be tackled by the same person and then in that case there is a possibility of a dilemma.  But in most cases that's not going to happen. The engineers are working on the optimist side (which will have other beneficial applications regardless of whether we lose the war or not), and the business directors are working on the pessimist side.  There is no \"best\" way to fight global warming. There are only strategies with differing trade offs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17931.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"jdapo3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The best way to save humanity from the negative effects of climate change is to future proof our infrastructure and accept that we can\u2019t stop it from happening. I\u2019m not going to be a climate change denier, I do however think that our approach to combating climate change is flawed.  We can\u2019t stop the Earth from heating up, and it is completely natural for the planet to heat up due to things like the tilt of the earth and it\u2019s axial precession which change every so often.   We need to accept the fact that we aren\u2019t gods, and we have no control over what this planet does. We need to adapt to the changing environment and create solutions to the potential problems that climate change can create instead of signing pieces of legislation that are really just wishful thinking and a way to improve the image of world leaders.  Organisms have been fine tuning themselves to meet the demands of this planet for billions of years, I don\u2019t see why we should be the only exception to the old rule of \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d.","c_root_id_A":"g97eg0c","c_root_id_B":"g96zwlz","created_at_utc_A":1603017876,"created_at_utc_B":1603007089,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You create a false dilemma. I'm actually pretty sure that we have people attacking the problem from both assumptions. The optimists are already busy researching alternative energy sources, developing fuel efficient technologies, and passing carbon reducing regulation. Some of them are probably doing so even while considering the increasingly likely possibility that these stopguards will ultimately fail.  On the other end we have pessimists who are damming up sea walls, and reinvesting into alternate avenues to maintain the best quality of life in our new diminished environment. There might be some dilemmas in that maybe some of these jobs could be tackled by the same person and then in that case there is a possibility of a dilemma.  But in most cases that's not going to happen. The engineers are working on the optimist side (which will have other beneficial applications regardless of whether we lose the war or not), and the business directors are working on the pessimist side.  There is no \"best\" way to fight global warming. There are only strategies with differing trade offs.","human_ref_B":"We made it happen, and its not going to be our world's end but we'll just make it a worse place to live. There is a project that is actually adopts something similar to what you said, it aims to keep the rising temperatures at an average of 1.5C celsius and warns drastic stuff is to happen if it passes even 2C. These policy recommendations are backbones of what UN and EU does today btw, you should read it, its very much business oriented and is as centrist as it gets when it comes to tackling climate change  https:\/\/www.ipcc.ch\/sr15\/chapter\/spm\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10787.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
+{"post_id":"jdapo3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The best way to save humanity from the negative effects of climate change is to future proof our infrastructure and accept that we can\u2019t stop it from happening. I\u2019m not going to be a climate change denier, I do however think that our approach to combating climate change is flawed.  We can\u2019t stop the Earth from heating up, and it is completely natural for the planet to heat up due to things like the tilt of the earth and it\u2019s axial precession which change every so often.   We need to accept the fact that we aren\u2019t gods, and we have no control over what this planet does. We need to adapt to the changing environment and create solutions to the potential problems that climate change can create instead of signing pieces of legislation that are really just wishful thinking and a way to improve the image of world leaders.  Organisms have been fine tuning themselves to meet the demands of this planet for billions of years, I don\u2019t see why we should be the only exception to the old rule of \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d.","c_root_id_A":"g97wgg1","c_root_id_B":"g96qdh0","created_at_utc_A":1603027698,"created_at_utc_B":1602999945,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> We can\u2019t stop the Earth from heating up.  Agreed: we've already put too much carbon into the atmosphere for that.  However, we can dramatically reduce *by how much* it will heat up.  > We need to accept the fact that we aren\u2019t gods, and we have no control over what this planet does.  Wait... then what do you think is causing the recent heat-up of the planet? Do you believe that it's mostly, or entirely, natural?  > Organisms have been fine tuning themselves to meet the demands of this planet for billions of years.  Yes, often at the cost of millions or billions of those organism's lives. We, as moral humans, would like to avoid this cost for our fellow man.  The modern pandemic is a good example of this. Throughout history, organisms have traditionally suffered through disease, and adapted over generations. Does this mean that we should all stop trying to prevent the spread of COVID, or even attempting to hospitalize those who catch it? No, it still seems moral to try to prevent the suffering caused by this disease, even if in the past, animals had to simply suffer through similar diseases.","human_ref_B":">We need to adapt to the changing environment and create solutions to the potential problems that climate change can create instead of signing pieces of legislation   Like what? Seems like any sort of infrastructure needed to deal with climate change can't be funded by and individual or even a large company, but an even larger group of people usually a government that do.things like signing legislation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27753.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"jdapo3","domain":"changemyview_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The best way to save humanity from the negative effects of climate change is to future proof our infrastructure and accept that we can\u2019t stop it from happening. I\u2019m not going to be a climate change denier, I do however think that our approach to combating climate change is flawed.  We can\u2019t stop the Earth from heating up, and it is completely natural for the planet to heat up due to things like the tilt of the earth and it\u2019s axial precession which change every so often.   We need to accept the fact that we aren\u2019t gods, and we have no control over what this planet does. We need to adapt to the changing environment and create solutions to the potential problems that climate change can create instead of signing pieces of legislation that are really just wishful thinking and a way to improve the image of world leaders.  Organisms have been fine tuning themselves to meet the demands of this planet for billions of years, I don\u2019t see why we should be the only exception to the old rule of \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d.","c_root_id_A":"g97wgg1","c_root_id_B":"g96zwlz","created_at_utc_A":1603027698,"created_at_utc_B":1603007089,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> We can\u2019t stop the Earth from heating up.  Agreed: we've already put too much carbon into the atmosphere for that.  However, we can dramatically reduce *by how much* it will heat up.  > We need to accept the fact that we aren\u2019t gods, and we have no control over what this planet does.  Wait... then what do you think is causing the recent heat-up of the planet? Do you believe that it's mostly, or entirely, natural?  > Organisms have been fine tuning themselves to meet the demands of this planet for billions of years.  Yes, often at the cost of millions or billions of those organism's lives. We, as moral humans, would like to avoid this cost for our fellow man.  The modern pandemic is a good example of this. Throughout history, organisms have traditionally suffered through disease, and adapted over generations. Does this mean that we should all stop trying to prevent the spread of COVID, or even attempting to hospitalize those who catch it? No, it still seems moral to try to prevent the suffering caused by this disease, even if in the past, animals had to simply suffer through similar diseases.","human_ref_B":"We made it happen, and its not going to be our world's end but we'll just make it a worse place to live. There is a project that is actually adopts something similar to what you said, it aims to keep the rising temperatures at an average of 1.5C celsius and warns drastic stuff is to happen if it passes even 2C. These policy recommendations are backbones of what UN and EU does today btw, you should read it, its very much business oriented and is as centrist as it gets when it comes to tackling climate change  https:\/\/www.ipcc.ch\/sr15\/chapter\/spm\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20609.0,"score_ratio":2.5}